Theological works

THE

THEOLOGICAL WORKS

OF THE

REV. JOHN JOHNSON, M.A.,

VICAE OF CRANBROOK IN THE DIOCESE OF CANTERBURY.

VOLUME II.

OXFORD :
JOHN HENRY PARKER.

MDCCCXLVII.

OXFORD:
PRINTKD BY I. SHRIMPTON.

THE

UNBLOODY SACRIFICE,

AND

A L TAR,

UNVAILED and SUPPORTED.

IN WHICH

The nature of the Eucharist is explained according to the sentiments of the
Christian Church in the four first centuries.

Part the SECOND.

SHEWING,

The Agreement and Disagreement of the Eucharist with the Sacrifices of the

Ancients, and the Excellency of the former.

The great Moment of the Eucharist both as a Feast and Sacrifice.
The Necessity of frequent Communion.
The Unity of the Eucharist.
The Nature of Excommunication.
And the Primitive Method of Preparation.

With DEVOTIONS for the ALTAR.

I deny not, hut that the Fathers do, and that with great reason, very much magnify the
wonderful Mystery , and Efficacy of this Sacrament, and frequently speak of a great Supernatural
Change made by the Divine Benediction ; which we also readily acknowledge. Archbishop
T1LLOTSON, in his Discourse of Transubstantiation, Page 291. of his Works in Folio, publish'd
in his Life-time.

Veritati nemo prascribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum.

Tertul. de Virg. veland.

By JOHN JOHNSON, A.M.

L OND ON:

Printed for ROBERT KNAPLOCK, at the Bishop1 s-Head
in St. Paul's Clmrch-Yard. MDCCXVIII.

THE PREFACE.

I HAVE in this Second Part finished my intended work on
the Unbloody Sacrifice : and as I see no cause to distrust
the strength of those reasons and authorities by which I
have endeavoured to establish it; so I desire my reader to
observe, that the same arguments, by which I have confirmed
the doctrine of the Christian Sacrifice, do at the same time
effectually serve the common cause of Apostolical Truth in
some very considerable points ; for,

I. By the method here used to prove the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist, it will evidently appear, that Christ's natural
Body might be, and was, a true proper Sacrifice, and that
Himself was a real sacrificing Priest, though His Blood
was never sprinkled on any Altar, nor any part of His Body
burnt by the hands of Himself or any other priest ; and
therefore the objections made by the Sociniansa against the
perfection of our Saviour's Sacrifice on this account, do all
fall to the ground. And it is no small satisfaction to me,
that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and the personal Sacrifice
of Christ, do rest upon the same foundation, and stand and
fall together.

II. By the doctrine here advanced, Transubstantiation is
torn up by the root : for the only specious argument for that
doctrine is this, that our Saviour bids His Disciples eat that
very Body of His, which was given or offered to God for
them ; and if He had never offered any but His natural
Body, then it must be confessed that this argument would
be of some weight. But now the sum and substance of the
true doctrine of the Eucharist I take to be this, that what
Christ offered to God, and gave to His Disciples to eat, was

" [Vid. Responsio F. S. ad Epist. Joan. Niemojevii. inter Socini Opera, ed.
165(5.]

B 2

4 PREFACE.

consecrated Bread ; and that the reason why He honoured
it with the title of His Body was, because He did, in offering
the Bread to God, in His own intention offer His Body as a
Sacrifice for the sins of men. If the Church of Rome had
not departed from this doctrine of the Scriptures, as under
stood by the primitive Church, by supposing that Christ did
twice offer His own personal Body, first in the Eucharist,
afterward on the Cross, she could never have fallen into so
absurd a notion as that of Transubstantiation. Christ's
Sacramental Body must of necessity be a distinct thing
from His natural Body, because He offered the first to God
as a pledge and representation of the latter ; and by setting
this doctrine upon its true primitive basis, we not only secure
ourselves against this gross error of Transubstantiation, but
also against the other odd conceits of the Lutherans and
Calvinists, who will have it, that they receive the very natural
Body of Christ in or at the Sacrament. I am too sensible
that I have been defamed as a promoter of Popery, and par
ticularly of the change of substance in the Eucharist ; I pray
God forgive the authors of these slanders ; or, if they have
sinned through ignorance only, I wish them a better under
standing and a sounder judgment. It is certain the primi
tive doctrine, which I defend, is not only inconsistent with
Transubstantiation, but with that Real Presence of the Body
of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the common opinion of
Protestants abroad.

III. The reasonableness of the Eucharist itself is, by the
account here given of it, set in a true light. This can never
be done by them who deny it to be a Sacrifice ; I mean, they
can never assign a just reason why Christ commanded us to
eat and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine as His Body
and Blood. Christ might have called the leaves on which
the Gospel is written by the name of His Body, with as
much reason as He calls the Sacramental Bread so ; and He
might have commanded us to eat them, as St. John did the
little book : He might have given the title of His Blood to
the water of Baptism, as well as to the Sacramental Wine,
for any thing that has or can be said for clearing this
matter by them who deny the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
But now, by the account here given, we have a very plain

PREFACE. 5

reason, why we are to eat and drink the consecrated Bread
and Wine, as Christ's Body and Blood ; namely, because He
offered them, and not the leaves of the Gospel, or the Bap
tismal water, as pledges of His natural Body and Blood to
His Divine Father ; and for that reason commanded them to
be eaten and drunk, because it was the universal practice of
the ancient people to feast on those things, which they had
first offered in Sacrifice.

Many of our eminent Divines, after Dr. Cudworth, have
indeed affirmed that the Eucharist is "a feast on a Sacrifice;"
but then they have deriad that the Sacrifice is offered in the
Eucharist, and have asserted that it was offered once only
on the Cross. This notion is liable to many just objections ;
for,

I. Upon this supposition our Saviour made a feast upon
the Sacrifice, before the Sacrifice had been offered. The
Sacrifice, according to them, was offered on the Cross many
hours after the feast of the Eucharist was ended ; but now it
is exceeding preposterous b, and contrary to the very nature
of things as well as all the ancient established method of
sacrifice, to eat or make a feast on a sacrifice that has not
yet been offered.

II. If the consecrated Bread and Wine were not offered
by Christ as the representatives of His Body and Blood, and
are not now so offered by the Church, then it cannot be said
that the Eucharist is a feast on a Sacrifice ; unless you will
say, that this Bread and Wine are converted into the sub
stance of Christ's Sacrificed Body and Blood, and so run into
the absurd and justly abhorred doctrine of Transubstanti-
ation.

III. Nay, I must add, that, upon this supposition, the
Eucharist is a feast on a Sacrifice, which now has no
being in the nature of things; for the natural Body and
Blood of Christ, as they are represented in the Eucharist,
separate from each other, are now no where in the universe.
Unless then the consecrated Bread and Wine be the Sacri-

b "Afltmx Qaye'iv, to fall on before sion of Damascius, apud Suidam :

the oblation was made, to eat at a re- 'ESetro /uei/ ol T& ffa)(j.a Kpeaxpayias, aOv-

ligious feast before the rites of sacrifice TOU 8e OVK Ve/°"X6TO ^(ra\afte'iv. Vid.

were ended, was proverbially absurd. Suidam, sub voce 'AOvrovs. Ed. Cant.

[This may be illustrated by an expres- 1705.]

6 PREFACE.

fice on which we feast, it is certain that both the Sacrifice
and the feast must be a mere airy notion.

In truth, it seems exceeding probable, that Christ could not,
while He was alive, offer His Body and Blood as substantially
separated from each other ; because it does not appear that
any Blood did flow from Christ's Body, till the soldier pierced
Johnxix. His side with a spear; and that St. John does therefore
84) 8°' give his testimony to this matter of fact with great solem
nity, lest any doubt should be made of Christ's Blood being
actually shed. The nails, with which His hands and feet
were fastened to the Cross, did probably so fill the orifices
made by them, that no blood could issue from thence till
those nails were drawn in order to take His Body down
from the Cross; and if this reasoning be just, then it is in
the nature of things impossible that Christ could offer His
natural Body and Blood apart, while He was alive upon the
Cross : and sure no one will say that He offered them while
His soul was in Hades, that is, in the state of the dead.
What therefore He could not offer in substance, He offered
by representation in the Eucharist.

And by this means we are enabled to give a clear and
plain reason, why St. Paulc calls the offering made by
Christ, Sacrifices, in the plural number ; namely, because He
not only offered the Bread and Wine, but offered them as
pledges and representations of His natural Body and Blood.

The First Part of this work was composed for the use of
them who had leisure and inclination to enter into the more
abstruse part of this controversy. Since my publication of
it, I have been desired by persons of great worth and judg
ment to draw up a scheme of this doctrine, and in as narrow
a compass and as plain a style as possible, for the informa
tion of such readers as do not care to concern themselves
with books that require long and earnest application. I
have accordingly so contrived this Second Part, that though
it be much less than the former, and be chiefly intended to
complete my whole design on this subject ; yet the full view
of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist may be taken from this

c Heb. ix. 23. It was therefore these, but the heavenly things them-
necessary, that the patterns of things selves with better Sacrifices than these,
in the heavens should be purified with

PREFACE. 7

volume. To this end I have been obliged to repeat some
things in the Introduction that have been said in the First
Part ; and yet I may call them improvements rather than
bare repetitions. And that a middling reader might be capa
ble of understanding the book, I have always endeavoured to
express myself in the most known common words that our
language affords, or at least that I could find. The subject
is seemingly new ; for whatever is so old as to be out of use,
has an appearance of novelty in the eyes of the present ge
neration : but, in truth, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is as
old as Christianity itself; and Sacrifice in general is as old
as mankind. Now to revive these notions, which have long
since been out of date, and to express the opinions and
practices of the ancients in the language of the present age,
and to do it in such a manner as to render their thoughts
agreeable to the relish of common English readers, is no
easy matter. However my end was to be understood by
all ; if I miss of my aim, the reader is to impute it to my
want of words.

It is now above two years and a half since the First Part
was published; during this time a large and learned bookd
has been printed chiefly on this subject in Latin, by Mons.
Pfaffy, a Lutheran Divine, tutor to the young Prince of
Wurtemberg. The author has taken on himself the office of
a mediator in this dispute ; and has indeed said many things
that highly deserve the approbation of all, who maintain
the doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Hee freely
declares his judgment, that the universal practice of all
Churches of old is clearly on our side; and that they who
deny it must be perfectly ignorant of the antiquities of the
Church. He is unwilling to allow that our Saviour was the
author of itf, but owns it to be an institution of the Apostles
or of some of them. He declares it ridiculous g to suppose
that the ancients by their Oblation and Sacrifice meant no
more than prayer ; he confesses, that not only Irenseus and

d S. Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis sertatione de praejudiciis Theologicis

Fragmenta Anecdota.— Quae [ex Bib- auxit Christopher. Matth. Ptaffius.

liotheca Taurinensi emit,] Latina ver- Hagse Comituin, Anno 1715.
sione notisque donavit, duahus Disser- e p. 183.

tationibus de Oblatione et Consecra- f Ibid,

done Eucharistiae illustravit, et Dis- » p. 50,

PREFACE.

Justin Martyrh, but both the Clements of Rome and Alex
andria1, do speak of a Sacrifice or Oblation of Bread and Wine.
He ownsk that Bread and Wine are called a Sacrifice of praise ;
that1 they are called gifts and spiritual Sacrifices; that the
Eucharist may be called a propitiatory Sacrifice111. He allows
the Prayer11 of Oblation and Consecration in the eighth book
of the Constitutions to be a very excellent one, worthy of so
great a mystery, and with which he himself is very much
edified; and does most particularly0 magnify the Prayer of
the same Constitutions for the descent of the Holy Spirit on
the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist : nay, in his Preface p,
he goes so far as to declare, that he does agree with the Rev
erend Dr. Hickes in his notion of the Sacrifice. But we are
especially obliged to thank this gentleman for not concealing
a fragment of Irenseus, in which the doctrine of the Sacrifice
of the Eucharist is so directly affirmed; the translation of
which I here present to my reader. "Theyq, who have

h p. 268—274.

V p. 254, 278. I am singularly
obliged to Mons. Pfaffy for discovering
this passage in Clem. Alex. Strom., lib.
i. p. 317. Sylburg. The words are,

"AprOV Kttl v8b)p OVK fir' '6.X\(aV riV&V,
aAA' ^ 67Tt Ttf aprCf) Kttl vSaTI Kara TJ]V

Trpoo~(popav, fjL^] Kara rbv Kavova rrjs e'/c-

rarrovo-ns rrjs ypa<p7Js. Elcrl yap ol KOI
vSup $i\bv evxapio-rovo-iv. He applies
Prov. ix. 17. to certain heretics, who
used only bread and water in the obla
tion; and this he declares to be con
trary to the canon of the Church. We
are not to wonder that Clement speaks
so sparingly of these matters ; for he
was one, who professed an obstinate
silence concerning religious mysteries.
Strom., lib.i. Sylburg., p. 275. [p. 323.
Ed. Potter,] and again Sylburg., p. 297.
[p. 348, Potter.]

k p. 338.

1 p. 330.

m p. 211.

n p. 287.

0 p. 96, and through his whole trea
tise De Consecratione.

P Pref.,p. 6.

q p. 25. Ot TCUS Seurepats rS>v aTro-
(rro'Attj/ Stard^eai TrapTj/coAouflTj/coTes
fcracrt rbv Kvpiov veav Trpoo-<popav ev rfj
Kaivfj 8ta6r)K7] /catfeo-TTj/ceVat, Kara rb
MaAax/ou rov Trpo<prirov' AtoYt airb
a.va.To\G>v rov f}\iov Kal ews Svafj.cov rb

a Mou SeS^|ao"Tat ev rols eOveffi, Kal
eV ivavrl r6ircp Ov/Aia/na Trpoadyerai rep
ovSjuari Mou, Kal 6vaia Ka6apa,
Kal 6 '\toa.vvt}s eV rfj 'ATro/caAui^et
Ta Ov/Aid/mara elcrlv at Trpoaewxal T<av
a-yifav' KO.\ 6 TIav\os irapa/caAe? rj/nas
Trapa(rrri(rai ra aw/j-ara fi/j.cav Bva'iav
£uaav, ayiav, evdpfcrrov rep 0e<£, rfyv
\oyiKrjv \arpeiav -rj/j-uf' Kal iraKiv' aua-
(pfpa}fj.€v Qvaiav aiVeVecos, rovrean, Kap-
irbv xctA&r. Avrai IMV at irpoacpopal
ov Kara rbi> v6jjiov elal, ov rb
(f)ov e|aAei^/as 6 Kvpios e'/c rov
rjpKtv, aAAa Kara irvev/na' ev Trvevfj.ari
yap Kal aXtjd^ia 8e? irpoffKvvslv rbv
®e6v. Ai6ri Kal y Trpoo~(popa rrjs et»xa-
piffnas OVK Hffri crapKiK-tj aAAa iri/ev/Aa-
riKfy, Kal 4v rovrff) Kadapd. TIpoo-(pfpo-
fj.fi/ yap rw ®e<£ rbv aprov Kal rb TTOTTJ-
piov rrjs fv\oyias, evxapiffrovi/res AUT^,
on rfj yrj eKeAeucre fK(pvo~ai rovs Kap-
TTOVS rovrovs ets rpofyjjv T^^repav Kal
evravQa r^v irpoo-fyopav TcAeo-avres e«-
KaXov/uev rb ITi/eG/xa rb "Ayiov, OTTCOS
airocpyvr) r^v Qvaiav ravrriv /cat rbv
aprov 2(£yua rov Xpio~rov, Kal rb irorT]-
piov rb Af|Ua rov Xpio-rov, 'iva ol /*€-
TaAa/SoVres rovrcov rtav avrirvircav rrjs
afpeaecas rwv a/ULapricav Kal rrjs far)s
alcoviov rvx^cTLv. Ol ovv ravras rds
•rrpoo-jpopas eV rrj ava/nvfiffei rov Kvpiov
ayovres ov rots 'lovSaiow Soy/uaai irpoa'-
epxovrai, aAAa irv€v/m.ariK<ii>s \eirovp-
yovvrts rr\s aotyias viol K\r)d-f)o-ovrai.

PREFACE.

attained to a perfect knowledge of the second Constitutions
of the Apostles, are sensible that our Lord instituted a new
Oblation in the New Testament, according to that of the
Prophet Malachi, " For from the rising of the sun to the
going down thereof, My Name is glorified among the heathen,
and in every place incense is offered to My Name, and the
pure oblation;" as John also in the Revelation says, "Incense
is the prayer of the saints :" and Paul exhorts us, " to pre
sent our bodies a living sacrifice to God, which is our rea
sonable service :" and again, " Let us offer the sacrifice of
praise, which is the oblation of our lips." These oblations
are not according to the Law, the hand-writing whereof the
Lord hath taken away and blotted out; but according to
the Spirit ; for we ought to worship God in spirit and in
truth. For this reason, the Oblation of the Eucharist is not
carnal but spiritual, and therefore pure ; for we offer to God
the Bread and Cup of blessing, giving thanks to Him, for
that He commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits
for our nourishment ; and afterwards, having performed the
oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may make this
Sacrifice and Bread the Body of Christ, and the Cup the
Blood of Christ ; that they who partake of these antitypes
may obtain remission of sins and everlasting life. They,
therefore, who make these oblations in remembrance of our
Lord, shall be called the sons of wisdom."

It must be owned, this gentleman gives but a very im
perfect account of his discovery of this and the other three
fragments, which he has published, of this very ancient Father;
he only tells his reader, that they were taken out of certain
ancient books in the royal library at Turin, which contained
extracts from the Fathers ; but he does not so much as give
an inquisitive reader any directions where to find these frag
ments, if he should have an opportunity of consulting the
books from which they were transcribed. But I shall not
enter into any dispute upon this head ; if they are genuine,
here is a new authority from the holy and apostolical Irena3us
for the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; if they are
not, yet we are sufficiently sure from the other printed works
of this most ancient writer,* that this was the doctrine and
practice of the age in which he lived.

10 PKEFACE.

I will confess I see no reason why the words may not
justly be thought Irenseus's. It is certain, that the holy
Ignatius'" mentions the Constitutions of the Apostles, fifty
or sixty years before Irenseus flourished. It does not from
thence follow, that there was any book which then passed
under that title. Indeed, all the whole scheme of Chris-
2 Pet. Hi. 2. tianity seems to be called the Commandment of the Apostles
by St. Peter, in the same sense that the whole Jewish system
is called the Law of Moses ; but it seems most probable, that
Ignatius, by the Constitutions of the Apostles, meant only
the rules of worship and discipline settled by them. The
main difficulty is, to know what Irenseus intended by the
Second Constitutions, for this is an expression peculiar to
this fragment. Yet I think a very probable account may be
given of this too ; for there can be no doubt but that, in the
age of Irenseus8, there was a distinction between the Chris
tians who had been baptized and admitted to the Communion,
and those who had not; and that the knowledge of the
Eucharist, and the method of administering and receiving it,
was imparted to the former only, and not to the latter.
From hence a distinction might naturally arise between the
First and Second Constitutions of the Apostles. For the
generality of the rules, which were fixed by the Apostles
for the worship of God and the government of the Church,
could not be concealed from the Catechumens, though they
were not baptized nor admitted to the Communion. By
attending the Christian congregations, and being present
while the hymns were sung, some prayers rehearsed, the
Scriptures read, and the sermons preached, they could not
be ignorant that the men were to pray and sing with their
heads uncovered, the women with their heads covered; that

r Ad Trail., c. 7. ToGro Se (id est, Prescript, c. 41. ["In primis quis

cavere ab hcereticis] €<rrai V/JLIV /j.r) (pvcri- catechumenus, quis fidelis, incertum

ovpevois, /ecu ovffiv axcopiVrots 0eou est: pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt,

'irjcrov XPLO-TOV, Kal rov ^TTKTKOTVOV, Kal pariter orant."] And speaks of the

TWV Siaray/j-aTuv ru>v ' AiroffTfaow. silence concerning the Christian mys-

s Vide Fragment. Irenaei ex (Ecu- teries, as an established law of the
menio, in Grabe's Edition, p. 469. Church, Apol., c. 7, 8. [He takes the
Tertullian, who was but a little more line of defence from the nature ofmys-
than twenty years junior to Irenseus, teries in general : " Cum vel ex forma
imputes it as a crime to the heretics, omnibus mysteriis silentii fides do-
that they made no distinction between beatur."]
the catechumens and faithful. De

PllEFACE. 11

they were to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from
fornication and blood. Further, before they were baptized,
they must be informed in the nature of Baptism, and the
questions and answers to be made upon that occasion ; for,
I think, all judicious Divines acknowledge that these were
used in the times of the Apostles. Now all these rites and
observances, with several others not here mentioned, might
justly be styled the First Constitutions of the Apostles, as
being first made known to them who retained to the Chris
tian congregations. By consequence, the Second Constitutions
were such as concerned the Communicants only; as the man
ner and method of administering the Eucharist, with all the
prayers,, rites, and usages thereunto belonging. It is certain
the Catechumens were kept in ignorance as to these matters ;
and when therefore after their Baptism they, were let into the
knowledge of them, they might justly esteem and call them
the Second Constitutions of the Apostles. And there is a
foundation for this distinction in those words of our Saviour
to His Apostles, when He bids them, " Go, and make disci- Matt.

pies of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Jx™
Son, and Holy Ghost/' for none could be disciples, but
such as were permitted to hear them preach, and did practise
what they heard in some measure; (their infant children
might indeed be disciples, though they could neither hear
nor practise ; for so the child of a slave is a slave, the eldest
son of a king is a king upon his father's death, though
neither the one can obey, nor the other command.) All
grown men that attended the sermons of the Apostles were
certainly disciples ; but when they had been baptized, then,
and not before, our Saviour charges the Apostles " to teach
them all things whatsoever He had commanded them ;" and
of the things which Christ had commanded, the Eucharist
may justly be esteemed the principal. It can scarce be con
ceived but that, when the Apostles had settled Divine wor
ship in any city, many would frequent those religious assem
blies and be well affected to Christianity, long before they
wholly resigned up themselves and their families to Christ
and His Gospel, by requesting to be baptized; and while
they were in this state, they might well be supposed to learn
all that I have just now mentioned as the First Constitutions,

12 PREFACE.

before they had actually been baptized and received the Eu
charist : and while they were in this state, they might prob
ably be called Catechumens*, and there is some reason to
believe that they actually were distinguished by this name ;
whereas it was time enough to know the Second sort, when
they had occasion to make use of them, I mean, when they
came to receive the Eucharist. And I see no reason to be
lieve, that the Apostles did ever administer the Sacrament
of Christ's Body and Blood in the presence of those who had
no right to join with them in that holy ordinance, or that
they taught them the nature of it. But if any are of opinion
that the Apostles were not the authors of the difference be
tween the faithful and catechumens, but spoke freely of the
Eucharist to all their hearers and administered it before all
that were willing to be present, then this will be a sufficient
reason why there should be no distinction between the First
and Second Constitutions in the Holy Scripture, or in the
time of Ignatius. But no man of learning can question but
that, in the age of Irenaeus, the faithful and the catechumens
were two bodies of men, and the several Constitutions re
lating to these two several bodies might therefore justly be
distinguished, as they are in this fragment ; and that, there
fore, by those who have attained to a certain knowledge of
the Second Constitutions of the Apostles, we are to under
stand the Faithful or Communicants.

Mons. Pfaffiusu is willing to have it thought, that by the
Second Constitutions we are to understand such instructions
relating to the Eucharist, as St. Paul had not yet given to
the Corinthians, when he wrote his first Epistle to them, but
iCor.xi.34. which he promised to give when he came next among them.
But it is evident, that the author of this fragment had another
opinion of these Constitutions, and believed that they con
tained, not the prudential advice of one or more of the
Apostles, but the institutions of Christ Himself, as his words
do fully prove ; for speaking of the communicants, as hath
been observed, he says, "they are sensible, that our Lord
hath instituted a new Oblation in the New Testament ;" and

* Apollos is called Karri xovpevos, 2 — 6.

Acts xviii. 25. Theophilus. Luke i. 4. u See his notes on this fragment,

It is certain that the former was not p. 28, 29.
a baptized Christian. See chap. xix.

PREFACE. 13

that therefore the Apostle had taught them this new Oblation,
when in the foregoing part of this chapter he delivered to
them that which he had received of the Lord concerning the
Holy Eucharist. It is true, that the new Oblation will and
does remain invisible to them, who read the writings of St.
Paul and other Apostles and holy penmen without great
application and attention ; therefore the author of this
fragment, whoever he was, expresses himself with a most
judicious exactness, when he says, ee They who have attained
to a perfect" or certain " knowledge of the Second Constitu
tions," &c. For the Greek word implies, not a slight and
common knowledge, but a clear x and distinct view of every
particular from one end to the other. And in the Introduc
tion to this volume, I hope to make it appear, that they who
have such an insight into the writings of the New Testament,
and particularly into the history of the Institution of this
Sacrament, cannot be ignorant that our Lord hath instituted
a new Oblation.

This gentleman's modesty does very well become him, when
in the first page of his Discourse concerning Prejudices he
supposes, that he has shewed himself not wholly free from
them in his foregoing treatises concerning the Oblation and
Consecration of the Eucharist. The root of his most observ
able prejudices is that absurd opinion of the Lutherans,
which we Englishmen call Consubstantiation ; but which
Mons. Pfaffius and his brethren choose to express by ' the
union of Christ's glorified Body and Blood with the Bread
and Wine in the Eucharist y/ and the ubiquity of that Body,
which he expressly declares to be the general opinion of the
Lutheran Divines2. Therefore he falls foul on Irenseus* for
asserting that our bodies are nourished with the Sacramental
Body of Christ; and, indeed, he seems to treat the living
Arians and Deists with much greater smoothness and com
plaisance than the Fathers, who are dead and cannot speak
for themselves. He labours to prove, that the union of the
Heavenly Thing with the earthly b, mentioned by Irenseus, is

See Grotius z Ibid., pp. 466, 467.

and other critics on Luke i. 4; 1 Tim. a p. 74.

iv. 6; 2 Tim. iii. 10. *> pp. 75, 95, 463, 464. About the

y See Pfaffius de Consecratione, p. time that he was penning these last

460- pages, as I have reason to believe by

14 PREFACE.

the supposed union of Christ's Body with the Bread in the
Holy Sacrament; and yet every where extols the Prayer of
the primitive Church for the descent of the Holy Spirit on
the symbols of the Eucharist0, so often mentioned by the
ancients, and expressly spoken of in the fragment above
cited. Nay, he would draw St. Ignatius d into this senti
ment, because he asserts but One Flesh of Christ, but One
Cup in the Unity of His Blood. Whereas, according to the
Lutheran notion, there are two Bodies or Fleshes (if I may
use such a word) of Christ in the Sacrament, I mean, the
Sacramental Flesh or consecrated Bread, and the Real or Per
sonal Flesh. It is impossible to give a greater instance of
prejudice than this, that he would make Justin Martyr6
assert the union of the Body of Christ with the Bread, when
Justin, expressly contrary to the Lutheran notion, says, "the
Food" or Bread "is the Body;" whereas Mons. Pfaffius and
his brethren make them two distinct things : and he would
make Irena3usf speak his opinion, though his own fragment,
as above cited, says that they prayed " the Bread might be
made Christ's Body."

But the most fatal mistake which this grand prejudice,
which for brevity's sake I call Consubstantiation, draws along
with it, in relation to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, is this ;
that an Oblation6 of Bread and Wine cannot be the offering
of the Body and Blood of Christ. I wish he had thought
fit to consider the great number of proofs by which I have
made it appear that the ancients believed the consecrated11

an original letter of his, which I have junction of the soul,' very unaccount-
seen, he received my First Part of the ably! [Quod licet expressis Irenaei
Unbloody Sacrifice, when about one verbis alibi positis contrariurn sit, ego-
half of his book was printed off. To met tamen arbitror per crapK^s Kalirvev-
shew his dislike of my book and the IJ.O.TOS tyepviv intelligi ab eo carnis et
doctrine it asserts, he blames me in the spiritus conjunctionem in resurrectione
margin of the page last mentioned for mortuorum.] (See Part i. p. [281.])
turning eyepffw Hvfv/j.aros, ' the raising* Pfaffius blames me for not believing
or reviving ' power of the spirit.' He the Real Presence ; our English writers
translates my words thus, resurgentem accuse me for asserting it. Thus Truth
potentiam, and professes he does not is often crushed between two extremes,
understand them; and, indeed, it is But Mons. Pfaffius seems to favour my
evident he does not understand Eng- explication of Irenaeus, in his Addenda,
lish, (which is very pardonable in a c p. 96, and his treatise De Con-
foreigner); if he had, he would have secratione.
turned ' raising power,' resurgere fa- d p. 265.
cientem potentiam. But see how this e pp. 370, 373.
learned gentleman mends the matter ; f Ibid,
in p. 101, he translates eyepffis irvfv- 8 p. 333. et passim.

s, conjunctionem animce, 'the con- h See Part i. p. [229,] &c.

PREFACE. 15

Bread and Wine to be the only Body and Blood in the Holy
Eucharist. He is mistaken to think they were offered up,
while they were wholly unconsecrated. Both the learned
Gerhard i and himself assert, that the Divine consecration is
performed, in some measure at least, by means of the words
of Institution ; and it is certain the words of Institution were
always rehearsed by the Priest in all the ancient Liturgies,
before the commemorative Oblation was solemnly made. And
the fragment expressly says, "that the Oblation was made in
remembrance of our Lord." He would persuade his reader
that there was no mention k of offering Christ's Body before
the fourth century, though he himself had produced Cyprian
affirming it, but three or four pages before.

Though he allows that the Apostles instituted the Obla
tion of Bread and Wine; yet he will scarce acknowledge
that they did this in all Churches ; particularly he excepts
Antioch1, for reasons too trivial to bear a repetition. Some
times he will have the Oblation to have been first brought
into the Church by Apostolical menm, and only as an in
different rite"; but he can by no means believe that our
Saviour was the Author of it, when He gives direction0 con
cerning "bringing a gift to the Altar;" for he says, "our
Saviour was then speaking to the people as well as to His
own disciples, and the Jewish people could not have rightly
understood our Saviour, if He then spake of offering Bread
and Wine for the Eucharist. As if this great man had for
gotten that our Saviour did commonly so speak to the Jews,
that they did not take His meaning ; but he will not allow,
that without necessity for so doing we are to understand our
Saviour saying things that were of no use for the present ;
yet we are sure that He gave advice relating to persecution Matt. v. 20
in this very sermon and chapter, and they had occasion to ~~ '
practise the one as soon as the other. But he would have Ire-
nseusP and the African Fathers contradict each other ; because
Irenseus says our Saviour commanded us to offer first-fruits,

1 Mons. Pfaff., 485, 496. ] p. 262.

k p. 325. [Si enim constet, non ex- m pp. 182, &c.

stare ullum de repetita Corporis Christi " p. 53.

Oblatione testimonium in iis scriptis, ° pp. 58, 185.

quae seculo quarto antiquiora sunt, p pp. 47, 48.
&c.] p. 321.

16 PREFACE.

but the African Fathers forbid it. Sure, this learned man
might easily have perceived that Irenseus speaks of the first-
fruits or best of their bread and wine, which the African
Fathers too in that very Canon expressly declare ought to be
offered on the Altar ; but the first-fruits, which the African
Fathers forbid to be offered on the Altar, were the choicest
of other products of the earth.

He has some prejudices, in common with our English
writers, against the Sacrifice; as, thatq bread and wine, and
things which have no blood to be poured out, cannot be a
true Sacrifice; and that there1" can be no sacrifice where
none of the ancient common rkes of Sacrifice are used. He
denies that prayer8 and the elevation of the symbols, which
he affirms to have prevailed in the ancient times, are suffi
cient to make an oblation. He affirms that all proper sacri
fices are abolished, but is wiser than to attempt to prove it.
And it is evident, he means only bloody sacrifices; for he
allows of no other. Because the ancients* speak of an Altar
in heaven, therefore he supposes that they could not believe
that there was a true Altar in the Church. By the same
argument he might have proved that the Jews could not
believe their temple or tabernacle at Jerusalem to be a true
Wisdom ix. one ; for they always conceived that there was a temple or
xxv. 40. tabernacle in heaven, of which the other was only a resem
blance. Another argument, by which he would prove that
Christians" have no Altar, is, because they are forbidden to
serve the tabernacle; for which he cites Heb. xiii. So let the
reader discover the proof, for I cannot. Again, in the same
place, we are to " go without the camp," where there is no
altar. And were not the Jews, too, to go without the camp
to burn their red heifer and some other sacrifices? Had
they, therefore, neither sacrifice nor altar?

One great and fundamental mistake of this and many
other writers on the same subject, both at home and abroad,
is, a conceit that our Saviour blessed the Bread, only by
say ing x, "Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God and King,
"Who bringest forth Bread out of the earth;" and the Cup,

* pp. 114, 126, 192, 284, 314. * pp. 293, 339.

r p. 345. u p. 190.

8 pp. 345, 296, &c. x pp. 170—172.

PREFACE. 17

by saying, " Blessed be Thou, &c., Who Greatest the fruit of
the vine." The only grounds for this opinion are, that the
Jewish Rabbies tell us, that their forefathers did by these
words bless the bread and wine at their entertainments. The
Christians of the Primitive Church by their constant prac
tice have informed us, that they believed our Saviour to have
blessed the Bread and Wine, not only by praising God for
them, but by appointing them to represent His Body and
Blood ; by offering them to God as pledges of His Body and
Blood, and by praying that God would enrich them with the
Holy Spirit and make them His Body and Blood in life and
power to the receivers. That the Jews of old did use the
words just now cited from Mons. Pfaffius in blessing the
Bread and Cup is indeed highly probable; but the Jews
themselves will not dare to say, that Christ Jesus did no
more. This is only an invention of some modern Christians,
who study to make the Eucharist no more than a Jewish
supper. Clemens Alexandrinusy says, that " Melchisedec dis
tributed bread and wine, as consecrated food, for a type of
the Eucharist. " From hence this gentleman concludes2, that
Melchisedec did not offer them to God, because he calls them
' food :' but he ought to have observed, that he gives them^the
title of ( consecrated food •' and how should he consecrate them
as a priest, but by offering them to God ?

He will not allow Dr. Hickesa that f to make prayers and
oblations' signifies the offering of them ; therefore he must
run into the absurdity of saying, that when the Apostle bids
Timothy ( make prayers/ he only means, that he should draw
forms of prayer, not use them ; and that, when Clement of
Rome directs the Corinthians to 'make oblations V he only
directed them to knead the bread, and not to present it at
the Altar; and that when St. Paul speaks of "Moses doing Heb.xi. 28-
the Passover," he meant, that Moses only killed the lamb
without offering it. However, he is positive, that ' to make
oblations c) only signifies offering them as laymen, according
to Clement. This is far from being certain, because in the
next line Clement says, "the High-priest has peculiar Liturgies

y e. p. 7. Ap. b [b> p. L Ap.]

1 p- 278. « p. 187.

* pp. 18(>, &c.

JOHNSON. c

18 PREFACE.

assigned to him." However, he himself ownsd that Eusebius
expresses Novatian's ' making the Oblation' as a Bishop. He
bluntly asserts that we cannot translate the words used by
our Saviour at the first Institution, " Offer this Cup, as oft
as ye drink it, in remembrance of Mee." I have elsewhere
effectually proved that these words are not in strictness
capable of any other signification ; for ' this' infallibly relates
to the Cup ; and how can we in the Sacrament ' do/ or ' make'
the Cup, but by offering it ? He favours our English writers
against the Sacrifice, by saying, that whereas f our Saviour
speaks of the present time, ' This is My Body given for you /
He is to be understood, as if He had said ' which shall be
given;' and that (to offers/ in the Constitution Liturgy, sig
nifies ' to pray.' He mentions Christ's sanctifying Himself11,
as a proof of the Oblation in the Eucharist ; but gives it this
short answer, "here is nothing said of Sacrifice." He denies1
that Christ speaks of the Eucharist in John vi. because He
had not yet instituted it. He might as well deny that
Christ spake of His death and of Judas's betraying Him,
because neither His death nor Judas's treachery were yet
accomplished.

This learned gentleman seems very fond of a late notion, viz.,
thatj the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament, save during
the time that It is used, or while the distribution is per
formed ; and for this reason he found it convenient to deny
that the reservation of the Eucharist was practised in all
Churches ; but he has brought no manner of proof for it.
He only saysk, some Councils and Fathers forbade any of the
Eucharist to be reserved; but for this we have only his bare
word.

But what is most intolerable in this Divine is, that he tells
his reader, the consecration1 of the Eucharist in the time of
Justin Martyr was performed by an extempore prayer. He
indeed had just before said that the Church in this age did
not retain the Apostolical simplicity ; and if he had mentioned

d p. 275. i» p. 228.

e 1 Cor. xi. 25. See Prop. Oblation, J p. 73.

p. 33. Unbloody Sacrifice, [Part i. p. J pp. 443, &c.

170.] k p. 445.

f p. 233. 1 p. 371.

« p. 290.

PREFACE. 19

this extempore prayer as an instance of this corruption, his
error had been more pardonable. But how does he prove
that this sort of prayer was used in Justin's time? Why,
because the Bishop is described by him as sending up prayers
" with all his might." He offers no proof but this, unless you
will take that for a proof which there immediately follows,
which is a citation taken out of a form of prayer in the Con
stitutions ; and sure this gentleman did not intend to confute
the use of forms of prayer by words taken out of one of the
primitive forms. Therefore all his evidence against set stated
forms must at last be reduced to these words of Justin. And I
will take leave to observe, that the ' Impartial Hand' in a book
lately reprinted, under the title of ' An Enquiry into the Con
stitution, &c. of the Primitive Church/ usesm the same argu
ment for the same purpose ; and takes great pains to prove,
that this phrase used by Justin always implies personal
abilities ; and this would easily have been granted him by all.
But sure, a grave, affectionate, harmonious, clear, audible
pronunciation is a personal ability, as well as invention or
expression. But Justin himself has effectually answered this
seeming argument against forms of prayer ; for in this very
Apology, from which Mons. Pfaffius and the ' Impartial Hand'
took this proof, speaking of Christian congregations in general,
he says, "We prayn [to God] and praise [Him] with all our
might/' &c. I hope it will not be said, that the whole body of
the Christian people could use their abilities of expression or
invention in their public devotions. And by these last words
of Justin it is very evident, that he meant nothing by this
phrase but the most affectionate zeal and the most devout
desires, expressed by their decent gestures, and the earnest
ness of their voice in making the responses.

But I am so far from believing that every pastor was by
the Apostle left to his own discretion in wording the prayers
and praises that were used in the Eucharist and upon all
solemn occasions, that I am fully persuaded that the Apostles
left proper forms for all offices of religion with the Bishops of
the Churches which they founded. I have not room here to

'" Part ii. pp. 34, &c. o!s irpo<r</>ep4ue0a iraaiv, ocrrj Svva^us,

n Apolog. [I. c. 13. p. 50. Ed. Paris. aivovvres.
1742.] \6y<{3 ci/^rjs Hal fv^apicrria^ e<p'

c 2

20 PREFACE.

speak at large of this matter, but hope to have an opportunity
of doing so hereafter. In the mean time, I shall only observe

2 Tim. i.13, that it is highly probable, that "the form of sound words, the

m/14.' 2; g°°d thing committed to Timothy's trust, and which he had
heard of the Apostle, and was to commit to faithful men,
who were able to teach others also," was a Liturgy ; and this

2 Tim. i. 14. Liturgy he was to "keep by the Holy Ghost;" for the Spirit
of God did not only open the understanding and judgment,
but did likewise strengthen and refresh the memories of men
in the age of miracles. And, I think, Basil the Great0 does
sufficiently shew, that the ancient Bishops and Priests did
not read their forms of prayer, but pronounced them ' by
heart,' as we commonly speak. It particularly deserves our
observation, that after St. Paul had commended Timothy for
offering "the good Oblationp," by which he means the Eu-

1 Tim. vi. charist, he presently adds, (t Keep this commandment without
spot, unrebukeable ;" he means, that he should not deface the
forms, which he had given him : and he means the same thing,

i Tim. vi. when soon after he bids him, " Keep that which was com
mitted to his charge, avoiding profane and vain babblings,"
or ' new-coined haranguesq/ as many of the ancients read
and understood it.

Another writer here in England has undertaken to answer
my First Part ; it is the same man whom I have convicted of
several forgeries1" and false reasonings before, and who there
fore has no right to the common civilities due to a fair
adversary. In his last book, which he calls ' The Christian
Eucharist no proper Sacrifice8,' he charges me with asserting
" a real change of the nature or natural qualities of bread
and wine ;" and that " the symbols are united to the natural

0 De Spirit. Sancto, c. 27. To TT)S the Defence of the Bp. of Oxford's
^iriK\^<T€ci3s p^ifj-ara erri rrj ai/aSei£et rov Charge. I had been informed that the
&prov rrjs evxapicrrias Kal TOV Trorrjpiou Defence of the Doctrine and Practice,
TTJS et»Ao7ias, ris rcav ayiwv eyypdfyoos &c., on which I spend two or three
yfjuv /caraAeAoiTrei/ ; ov yap Sr) TOVTOIS pages in my Pref. Ep., was a person of
apKovfAzQa, u>v 6 'Atr6aro\os 7) rb evay- some eminence in the Church ; but I
ye\iov eVe/u.i'770'077, aAAa /cat TrpoA^yo/xep arn since assured, that these two pam-
Kal firiheyopfv erepa — e/c rris aypafyov phlets, and a third called The Chris-
SiSaovcaAms 7rapaAa/3<Wes.— [torn. iii. tian Eucharist no proper Sacrifice, did
p. 55. Ed. Paris. 1730.] all come from the same hand, that is,

P 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13. See First Part Dr. [Turner] of [Greenwich], in the

of Unbloody Sacrifice, [p. 223.] diocese of [Rochester].

1 Vid. Mill in loc. Kcuvofywias. s Christian Eucharist no proper Sa-
1 See Ep. Pref. to Unbloody Sacri- crifice, pp. 7, 8.

fice, [Pt. i. p. JO,] and Reflections on

PREFACE. 21

Person or Body of our Saviour." He cites no words of mine,
nor refers to any page of my book ; and I am very sure
that I never did in my most secret thoughts entertain any
such opinion, much less declare for it in my writings. We
are not to wonder, if Deists or Free-thinkers bring every day
false accusations against clergymen, when they of the same
order are guilty of this unchristian practice : but I insist
upon it by the authority of all the venerable judges in
Westminster-Hall, that the criminal words ought to be
specified in the indictment; and till he can produce any
such words of mine, I charge upon him this accusation con
cerning " the real change of the nature of the Bread," as an
open, groundless forgery and slander ; nor could I have so
long been patient under it, but that I am assured his writings
meet with very few readers. I have indeed had much the
same imputation laid on me by Mr. Lewis in a scurrilous
pamphlet, which he wrote against me " by the encouragement
of his superiors," as he himself has declared; contrary to all
the laws of friendship, of which yet he made the highest pro
fessions, at the same time that he published his pamphlet.
There is nothing in it relating to the controversy itself that
deserves my resentment, excepting that vile imputation con
cerning the change of the natural qualities in the Sacramen
tal elements. An honest friend of mine had long ere this
given him a just reproof from the press, if it had not been
thought that such pamphlets as Mr. L — s's can do hurt to
no cause but that which they defend.

I am further made to say by Dr. T., that* "oblation con
stitutes a sacrifice/' Whereas by my11 definition of a sacrifice I
make five particulars in some measure necessary to const tute
a sacrifice. I say indeed, that no rite is necessary to Sacrifice
but the act or acts of oblation. And has he proved any
other rite to be necessary ? No ; nor so much as attempted
it. He would prove, that* " first-fruits were offered, yet were
not sacrifices ;" and did I ever say, that whatever was offered
was a sacrifice ? but why were they not sacrifices ? Why, in
short, because no part of them was burnt. Well, then, suppose
there had some part of them been laid on the altar to be

1 Christ. Euch. no proper Sacrifice, u Unbloody Sacr., Parti, p. [71.]

p. 19. * pp. 20, 21.

22 PREFACE.

burnt, would not this have made them sacrifices ? and then
would not this laying them on the altar have been a rite
or action, by which the oblation was performed ? He says
further, " All Divines till of late have looked on first-fruits as
oblations, not sacrifices." This is strange, wheny [the] LXX.
as ancient Divines as he can name, excepting the penmen of
the Old Testament, do unanimously call them ' ' a sacrifice ;" I
mean the Greek Translators. The truth is, they were offered
by being waved in the priest's hands; they could not be
burnt, because they were leavened; and no leaven was to
come on God's altar.

This Doctor, for a cast of his wit, is pleased to say that
Dr. Hickes55 and Mr. «T — — n "begin with the Fathers of
the Church, and work their way backwards till they come
at Scripture." Well, then, suppose we had taken Dr. T — 's
method, begun at Scripture and thence proceeded to Fathers,
had this been going forward ? Certainly not, except in Dr.
T — 's judgment the Fathers are, in some sense, before the
Scriptures. He certainly works backward, who from greater
proof descends to less, from earlier to later, from Divine to
human; yet this it seems, in the Doctor's judgment, is
going forward. He spends one third of his book to prove,
that by the third Apostolical Canon new ears of corn
were permitted to be offered together with the Bread and
Wine in the Eucharist. And to this purpose he first
alleges the authority of Bishop Beveridgea; and there is thus
much of truth in what the Doctor says, that the false
pointings in the text of Bishop Beveridge's Edition might
lead the Doctor into this mistaken sense of the words ; but
when he says that " Bishop Beveridge did so understand" this
Canon, he is himself guilty of an error, if not something
worse. It is certain5, the Bishop declares positively against

* Lev. xxiii. 16, 17. Trpoo-ourere Qv- praster Panem et Vinum ab Ipso

aiav v4av ry Kvpicf. 'ATrb TTJS Karoucias Christo instituta, uti Balsamon et Zo-

V/JLUV irpocroiffere &provs eVt^e^a, 8vo naras Canonem hunc interpretantur.

Uprovs — Tj-pavroyei'i/TftuaTcoj' T<£ Kvpic,; And on the words, irX^v viuv xt'Spa^,

2 p. 230. he says further, Interpretes hie con-

a PP- 34, 38. sentiunt, quod hoc Canone praecipitur,

b [Vid. Guil. Beveregii Annota- ut novae spicas tetnpore opportune, non

tiones, p. 15. ad calcem torn. ii. Pah- ut sacrificia Deo, sed ut primitiaa

dect. Canonum,Ed, Oxon. 1672.] Hoc sacerdoti offerantur; and for this cites

itaque tertio Canone cautum est, nequis the Scholiast to Harmenopulus, and the

aliud quippiam in Sacrificio incruento Arabic collection of Canons, part of

sive Coena Dominica ad Altare offerat, which the Dr. translates, p. 38.

PREFACE. 23

the Doctor in his notes on this Canon Apostolical, as the
reader will see by the Bishop's own words in the margin;
therefore it is certain the text is pointed contrary to the
Bishop's own judgment. The Doctor in the same place
says, that Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, give the same
interpretation which he had just before fathered on Bishop
Beveridge. Now the learned reader, by looking into the
margin0, may convince himself, that the two former are
directly against this Doctor's sense of the words in their
notes on this very Canon, and the third not for it ; nay, in
his explaining the next Canon he is as directly against the
Doctor, as I can be. But, says Dr. T — r, " the Arabic Para
phrase so explains it, as Bishop Beveridge shews." Here
again he misrepresents both his authors, as appears by the
words of bothd transcribed in the margin. So here we have
five authors cited in one paragraph, without any conscience
or regard to truth. Sure, no reader can expect that I should
undertake the drudgery of exposing all the wilful or unwilful
blunders of so faithless a writer. He, who desires further
satisfaction in the meaning of this Canon, is desired to com
pare it with the 37th Canon of the African Code and the 28th
Canon of the Synod in Trulloe; for I suppose the reader will
rather take the judgment of the five learned interpreters
above mentioned, and of these two great Synods, than of
Dr. T— r.

c Balsam, in Can. Apost. 3. O.KOVUV ws Kal TOV 63| avrrjsotvov, els TfteffLovp-

Se TOV navovos XtyovTos, [TTA.^// v4uv yiav Trapa\a^avo^vov TTJS avaifj-aKTOv

XtSpaji/,] /*}) vo/j.io"r)s (Tiry/<:exwpe?<r0ai r^y Ovcrias.

Sia TOVTUIV Qvaiav' Kal TOVTO yap CCTTTJ- d Immediately after the word inter-

y6pevTai' a\\a \eye Trpo<T(pfpe<r6ai TO.VTO. pretantur in note [b] above, Bishop Be-

T(f lepfl ws airapxas, K. r. \. Bev. Pan- veridge goes on in these words, Quibus

dect., torn. i. p. 2. Zonaras, ibid. 'O suffragatur Josephus ./Egyptius in Ara-

Kvpios irapaSiSovs rots /u,a07?Ta?s AVTOV bica Canonum collectione, qua haec

TV ITT! Tfj avai/j.dKTci} Qv<ria reAerV, prima pars hujus Canonis sic explica-

apTOi Kal divas TOMTT\V reAe?^ TrapaSeSw/ce. tur ; " Quicunque Episcopus vel Pres-

Sib Kal oi 'ATr6(TTo\oi erep^i/ rt irpbs byter legem Domini nostriJesu Christ!

6v<riavTrpo(rdye(T0ataTn]y6pfv(rav. — ara- de oblatione transgressus fuerit, et

<f)v\as Se — irpoadyeffOai (rui/exwp7j<rov super Altare obtulerit mel aut lac, vel

Tr\Tf)v oi/x &s Ovcrias raura Trpo(r<p*p£(T9ai, etiam puri puti vini loco adduxerit

a\\' ws airapxas, K.T.\. Aristen. in potum inebriantem, vel quippiam ex

Can. Ap. 3. ibid.> — 'Airapxas 8e ruv vino inusitato, igne aut aliter parato,

veW Kapiruif, tfroi offirpicav, Kal ffra<pv- aut avem aliquam, aut animal, aut

A.TJS, Trpo<r<pfpfiv Kara rbv TTJS yzupyias aliamhostiampraeterOblationem,quam

Kaipbv, els evxapurriav TOV 86vros 0eoO, Dominus Jesus prsecepit ex pane simi-

(iriTfTpairTai. lagineo puro novoque, et vino ex uvis

Idem, in Can. Ap. 4. p. 3. 'H yap vite ortis presso, Sacerdotio ejiciatur.
<TTa<pv\}] eV rfj tKK\r](ria irpoffaxG-nffc- e [Bev. Synodic., torn. i. p. 188.]

Tttt, KOT* QaifitrOV TUV &\\Wl'

POSTSCRIPT.

POSTSCRIPT.

I HAVE received from my bookseller a printed book, entitled
" A letter to Dr. Brett/' subscribed " Ezekiel Standfast."
Dr. Wise is, I find, the supposed author of it ; and, indeed, his
style and genius shine forth in every page of it, and a great
part of the book is levelled at me by name. He gives over
arguing, and betakes himself to downright drolling and
slander, the last refuge of a baffled cause. He charges mef
with " entering as far into Transubstantiation as even Father
Massuet e, the late defender of it. In answer to which, I
only desire my reader to consult the First Part of this work,
to which the Doctor refers ; and there he will find, that I do
not go so far as the Lutherans in this point h, whom yet Dr.
Wise defends as to this article. It is very strange that the
learned Pfaffius1, who is himself a Lutheran, should impute it
to me as an error that is common to me and the other writers
of the Church of England, that we do not believe the Real
Presence; and yet [that] Dr. Wise should charge it on me as
a crime, that I " have entered into Transubstantiation." Per
haps he means that I have entered into it by way of opposition,
as far as Massuet entered into it by way of defence and sub
mission. In no other sense can the words of this Doctor be
true. He brings against me three personal accusations, of
which I think myself concerned to give an account to my
reader.

I. That which most of all affects me is the charge of in
gratitude to my Most Reverend patron, the late Archbishop of
Canterbury k. And to prove this1, he taxes me with saying,
that he is " unsound in the faith," and a great deal more to the
same purpose.15* I desire the reader to use his own eyes and
judgment in perusing those words of mine there referred to ;
and I am certain I need no other defence. I do further
affirm that I never was guilty of any indecent behaviour
toward him ; I have, indeed, twice or thrice voted for such

f p. 116. » Pfaff., 464.

8 [Dom Rene Massuet, the Bene- k [Dr. Thomas Tenison.]

dictine annotator on "St. Irenaeus. 1 l p. 70.
h p. 128.

POSTSCRIPT. 25

knights of the shire as it was said he did not approve of.
Sure, this can be no crime in the eyes of equal judges. If
patrons have a right to dispose of the votes of those clergy
men whom they have preferred, then their tenure is more
vile than that of the meanest layman. Dr. Wise represents
his Grace's favours toward me in such a manner as to prove
himself perfectly ignorant in this point ; but I shall say
nothing to extenuate them, but only observe to him that
I was a freeholder in the county before I was admitted to holy
orders, and that when his Lordship was advanced to the See of
Canterbury, he found me beneficed in this Diocese to the
value of ,£120 per annum.

II. He says I was once "a violent Whigm." I ever re
nounced' the name of a Whig. I was indeed too much a
Williamite, which might give too just occasion to some to
brand me with that title of reproach.

III. Dr. Wise slily insinuates, that it is my practice to
elevate the Bread and Winen. And it is true that I did
sometimes, about four or five years ago, in the act of conse
cration lift up the Bread and Wine higher than usual, that
the people might see the Bread broken and the Cup taken
into my hand, as the Rubric directs, and for no other reason ;
some people, who seemed desirous to see the holy action,
sitting at a great distance from the Lord's Table in this very
large church. But I never elevated the elements after con
secration ; nay, I believe it horrible superstition in those that
do it, if any such there be ; and I do further solemnly de
clare it to be my sentiment, that to elevate and adore the
Sacrament, according to the practice of the Church of Rome,
is downright idolatry.

IV. This Doctor tells his reader that0 I rode about "to try
my interest with the clergy," in order to procure their voices
at the last election of Clerks for Convocation. Now the con
trary to this is notoriously true ; I mean, that I declared to
all that offered me their votes that I resolved not to be a
competitor. And I am very certain that I never asked a

m p. 73. tion preferred by the Long Parliament ;

n p. 78. [The same charge was see in Wrenn's Parentalia, Life of

brought forward against the learned Matthew Bishop of Ely, p. 104.]

Confessor, Dr. Matthew Wrenn, Bishop ° p. 134.
of Ely, among the Articles of accusa-

26 POSTSCRIPT.

vote of any single clergyman for myself, after the deplorable
death of Queen Anne, by which the former Convocation was
dissolved.

The sum of all that can be learned from the English books
written against the defenders of the Sacrifice in the Eucha
rist is this, that they must be run down with impudent
fictions, to supply the want of argument.

Cranbrook, June 14, 1716.

A DISCOURSE

ON THE

UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, AND ALTAR,

PART II.

THE INTRODUCTION,

SHEWING THAT CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST OFFERED OR SACRI
FICED HIMSELF, UNDER THE SYMBOLS OF BREAD AND
WINE.

THERE are few doctrines more plainly taught us in Scripture Christ was
than this, that Christ offered Himself a Sacrifice for our sins. J^8*511"
St. Paul expresses this truth in great variety of words. He
tells us, that Christ " gave Himself for us;" that "He became a Gal. i. 4;
sin-offering for usa ;" that "He offered Himself without spot to j{; fj; m
God ;" that " He appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of Heb.ix.i4;
Himself;" that " He gave," or offered " Himself to God for us £^6'v 2
an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour."
The phrase last mentioned, that is, a sweet-smelling savour,
peculiarly belongs to the most proper sacrifices that were ever
offered, before Christ came into the world. Not only the
burnt- offerings of Noah, and those that were enjoined by the Gen. viii.
Law of Moses, but likewise the sacrifices for sin, the meat- g.'iv.^si".1*
offerings, and the peace-offerings, have this title given to ^..15gpU
them ; by which is meant, that such sacrifices, duly offered, 5.
were as acceptable to God, as a sweet perfume is to men.
Therefore, when the Apostle calls the Sacrifice of Christ " a
sweet savour to God," his meaning is, not only that it was a
true and proper sacrifice, but that it was esteemed and re
ceived as such by God the Father.

a 2 Cor. v. 21. That a/jiapria here any man by reading Dr. Whitby on the
signifies 'a sin- offering' will appear to place.

28 INTRODUCTION.

ttiataHewas ^ut ^ (lues^on *s> wnen Christ did as a Priest offer His
offered only Body and Blood to God. Now there is a common tradition,
Cross? that He did it at no other time nor place here on earth, but
on the Cross only. I call this a tradition, because it is an
opinion that is not delivered to us in Scripture, nor capable
of being proved from thence. And it is one of the worst sort
of traditions, because it is not affirmed by any ancient writer
of the Church, but invented in these last ages ; nay, I may
dare to affirm that it is not consistent either with the
account which the Scripture contains of this matter, or with
the doctrine of the Primitive Church. And here I must
observe to my reader, that I have throughout this work
proposed it to myself as the most safe and certain rule for
the direction of our judgment and practice, to take Scripture
and other ancient books, in such a sense as may make them
perfectly agree with each other. And it will appear to any
learned reader, that this sense is always the most easy and
natural, both in relation to the Scriptures, and those other
ancient books which I have frequently quoted. And in this
lies the advantage of that doctrine of the Eucharist for
which I plead, that, upon this bottom, Jesus Christ, the
Apostles, and primitive Fathers, do say the same thing, and
express it for the most part in plain and clear words ; but
they who oppose this doctrine are forced to set the ancient
Fathers at variance with our Saviour and the penmen of the
New Testament ; and, to that end, to put oftentimes a harsh
and unnatural sense upon what is said either in the Scripture
or in other ancient writings upon this subject.

Now in order to shew that Christ did, as a Priest, offer
His Body and Blood to God when He instituted this Sacra
ment, T desire that the following particulars may be duly
weighed.

Bloody sa- I. Bloody sacrifices were usually offered before they were
slain or began to be slain. The burnt-offerings, peace-of-
flings* and common offerings for sin, were directed by the
Lev. i. 2, 3. Law of Moses to be offered by the laymen who brought them
iv. J3— is.5 to the altar, while the beasts were yet alive ; and I shall
— 2924 27 nereafter have occasion to shew, that it was the practice of
the Jews to do this with a solemn prayer. And all the
sacrifices, offered at the consecration of the priests or on the

INTRODUCTION. 29

day of expiation, were offered by him that performed the
priest's office before they were slain. I do not mean that
the oblation was finished, before the beast was killed and the
blood sprinkled and other rites performed ; but that, in these
cases, the sacrifice was actually presented to God, and His
acceptance of the sacrifice humbly requested by the priest,
before the blood of the beast was shed or any other rite
made use of. And this may be proved, beyond all doubt,
from the history of Aaron's consecration, and the description
of the sacrifices on the day of expiation. In the former,
Moses performed the office of a priest by the express com
mand of God Himself. The sacrifice first mentioned in the
consecration-service is that of a bullock for sin ; and it is ex -
pressly saidb, that " Moses brought/' or offered " the sin-offer
ing," then Aaron and his sons laid their hands on it ; after
that it was slain ; and in the same chapter we have the same
account given us of the ram for the burnt-offering and the Lev. viii.
other ram of consecration. On the day of expiation Aaron
is directed to " offer the bullock for a sin-offering for him- Lev. xvi.
self and his house, and make an atonement for himself and
his house," and then to kill the bullock ; so that this sacrifice
was not only offered while it was yet alive, but the atonement
is in some measure attributed to the oblation then made.
And he is commanded on the same day " to bring the goat, Lev. xvi.
on which the Lord's lot fell, and to offer him up for a sin- 1C
offering," then to offer the scape-goat alive, then the sin-
offering before mentioned for himself and his family, and to
carry the blood of the bullock within the veil, and after all
this to slay the goat which he had before offered for the sins
of the people, and then to carry its blood within the veil.
From all this it is evident, that the sacrifices offered for the
consecrating of the priests, and the expiating both priests and
people on the day of atonement, were to be offered, before
they were slain, by him that performed the priest's office.
Now I suppose all Protestants will allow, that Christ's Sacri
fice was intended for the expiation of sin; and if so, then
they cannot think [it] strange, that it was offered before it was

b Lev. viii. 14; Ex. xxix. 10. The expressly signifying 'to offer,' though

Hebrew verb used in the latter text is our translators turn it ' to bring,' or

D'Hpil : and I conceive the Hebrew ' cause to bring.'
tongue does not afford any word more

30

INTRODUCTION.

Christ offer-
ed Himself
before His
cruci
fixion.

John xvii.
20.

2 Chron.
xxix. 31 ;
Ezek. xliii.
26.

Psalm ex.

slain, and that by the priest himself; for it is clear that this
was the method prescribed by Moses of old. It will presently
be shewed, that the Body and Blood of Christ were intended
as a Sacrifice of consecration as well as expiation, and that
therefore the proper time of offering them was before He was
actually slain as a Sacrifice. And it will in due time be
proved, that the sacrifices of the Gentiles were offered in the
same method.

2. Christ Himself does assure us, that He did, as a Priest,
offer Himself to God before He was crucified, and that He
offered Himself as a Sacrifice of consecration. The words of
our Saviour to this purpose are part of that most solemn
prayer which He addressed to God the Father, before He was
gone out of that room in which He instituted the Eucharist,
before He was gone over the brook Kedron, or entered into
the garden where He underwent that most violent agony.
He speaks of His Apostles, for whom He had been praying
in the foregoing part of the chapter, and says, " For their
sakes I sanctify," or consecrate " Myself, that they also may
be sanctified," or consecrated " in the truth." Dr. Outram
saysc, "that by Christ's 'consecrating Himself can be
meant nothing but 'His offering Himself a Sacrifice."
Dr. Whitby interprets the words to the same sensed. It is
certain that the words do of necessity import an oblation of
Himself. For it is observable, that persons designed and
declared before-hand to be priests by a Divine authority, as
the sons of Aaron were, are said " to consecrate themselves,"
when they first enter upon the exercise of their office ; and,
indeed, the generality of the Levitical priests had no other
consecration, especially in the later times. Now our Saviour,
having been not only declared but sworn to be a Priest many
ages before by God the Father, is here said to consecrate
Himself, because He was now offering the Sacrifice by which

c Primam earum rerum, quibus con-
stitit Sacrificium suum, turn praestabat
Dei Filius, cum Se ad mortem immi-
nentem Deo ultro offerebat. — primo
enim mortem aditurus Se propter suos
Seipsum aytdfnv dixit ; hoc est, ut
victimam Deo offerre. — nee alium ul-
lum hoc in loco vox ayidfcur sensum
recipit; quo factum est, ut verba ilia

ayidfa ffj.avTbv ita explicet S. Chrysos-
tomus, irpofftyepco crol Qvaiav. — unde in-
telligitur Dominum nostrum turn, cum
preces hasce ederet, Deo Se ut victimam
obtulisse. De Sacrificiis, p. 286. lib. ii.
c. 3. edit. Amst.

d See Part i. of the Unbloody Sacri
fice, p. [184.]

INTRODUCTION. 31

He entered on His Priestly function ; and He at the same
time consecrated or began to consecrate His Apostles to the
Priestly office, by giving them a commission "to do/' or
offer "this, in remembrance of Him." And He finished
this consecration, when after His resurrection, " He breathed
on them, and said, ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose sins
ye do remit, they are remitted/ '' And this consecration
was both what our Saviour and His Apostles were clearly
capable of, and which does therefore best agree with this
text; in which Christ declares, in the first place, that He
consecrated or sanctified Himself, and gives the reason why
He did so, namely, that they also might be consecrated ; for
they had never been personally declared by God or Christ
Jesus to be the ministers of this Sacrifice and Sacrament,
before the institution of it ; therefore, I take this to be the
meaning of our Saviour ; " I now consecrate Myself to the
Priestly office, by offering My Body and Blood as a Sacrifice,
that My Apostles also may, by this means, be consecrated to
officiate as Priests in the mysteries of the Gospel." For, by
" the truth" here, we are to understand the doctrine and
Sacraments of the Gospel, as distinguished from those of the
Law ; and e this is the usual signification of the word ' truth'
in St. John's Gospel.

3. If we enquire into the precise moment of time when Before He
our Saviour pronounced these words, " I sanctify," or con-
secrate "Myself," we may positively determine, that it was
after He had begun, and before He had perfectly finished,
the institution of the Eucharist ; though we cannot certainly
determine to what part of that holy action this prayer be
longs. St. John himself does wholly omit the history of
Christ's breaking, pouring out, and blessing the Bread and
Wine. And, indeed, he seldom mentions any particulars, but
such as the other three Evangelists had passed over in silence ;

e "The Law was given by Moses, taught in the Gospel, John iv. 24.

but Truth came by Jesus Christ," John "Sanctify them (the Apostles) in Thy

i. 17. "The Truth shall make you Truth, Thy word is Truth," that is, Thy

free," viii. 32. " I am the Way, and Gospel preached by Me is the accom-

the Truth," that is, the completion of plishment of the Law and Prophets :

the types of the Law, xiv. 6. " They therefore Christ desires God to conse-

that worship God must worship Him crate them to be stewards of the Gospel

in spirit and truth," that is, in the mysteries,
manner typified in the Law, clearly

32 INTRODUCTION.

therefore, though he says nothing concerning the Bread and
Wine, yet he inserts a prayer used by our blessed Lord on
this occasion. It is indeed most probable, that these peti
tions were put up to God after His having blessed the ele
ments, and upon His distributing them to His Apostles ; at
least, that the words, now cited, belong to that part of the
sacred office. We are assured, that after Christ had spoken
John xviii. these words, or pronounced this prayer, " He went over the
brook Kedron, where was a garden/' and where He was soon
after apprehended ; and that therefore thL prayer must have
been used at the Eucharist, which was the last action of mo
ment recorded by the other Evangelists, before His going
to Mount Olivet, where this garden was. I do not from
St. John's expression certainly conclude, that these words,
or this prayer, did so immediately precede His going over
the brook, that nothing could be said or done in the mean
time; I only infer from what has been said, that, as it is
certain our Saviour performed the part of a Priest before He
was fastened to the Cross ; so there is a very fair probability
from this text, that He did it at the time of His instituting
the Eucharist.

And upon 4. And this will amount to more than a probability, if it
tudngthe be considered that Christ, when He administered the Bread
Eucharist. ^o the Apostles, did expressly declare this Bread to be His Body
" given/' or offered " for them :" and when He administered
the Cup, that this was " His Blood shed for them,'' He says,
as directly and strongly as words can well express it, that
He then gave His Body to God, and shed His Blood as a
ransom for the sins of men. Neither Christ nor His Apo
stles have declared that He did, at any other time or place,
as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood to the Father here
on earth. It deserves our particular notice,, that not only
Lukexxii. St. Luke represents our Saviour as saying, "This is My
Body given for you /' but St. Matthew informs us, that our
Matt. xxvi. Saviour said concerning the Cup, " This is My Blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many."
Mark xiv. St. Mark also speaks of the time then present, " which is
shed for many /' and St. Paul, in relating this sacred insti-
i Cor. xi. tution, speaks of our Saviour as using these words, " This is
My Body, which is broken for you." Nothing can be more

INTRODUCTION. 33

harsh than to suppose, that we may not rely upon the re
port of four holy writers, when they agree as to the circum
stance of time. All writers do indeed sometimes speak of
what is to be done, as now already done ; but then the reader
is, from the nature or method of the facts by them related,
set right as to the certain time ; but we cannot, from any of
the four Gospels or any other passage in the New Testa
ment, inform ourselves that Christ did at any other certain
time here on earth, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood to
God ; and therefore, since four of these writers do assure us,
that Christ declared His Body to be given, His Blood to be
poured out in the Eucharist, we may from thence safely
conclude, that He did then offer Himself, while He was
alive; especially, since sacrifices of expiation and consecra
tion were of old thus offered by the priest before they were
slain. And the fancy, that the Evangelist used the time
present for the time to come, has no other foundation but
that of the Popish Mass-Book, and the old Latin translation
of the Gospels, in which the words run thus : " This is My
Body which shall be given, This is My Blood which shall be
shed."

5. And by this it appears, that our Saviour consecrated And then
His Apostles to their office by and in the Sacrifice of the His Apo-

Eucharist. At the same time that He entered upon the exer-
cise of His Priestly office by offering His Body and Blood, tWs Sacri
He committed to them a power of doing or offering the
same in remembrance of Him ; for He sanctified Himself
that He might also sanctify them ; and thus St. Paul declares
in behalf of himself and his fellow Apostles, " we were sancti
fied all at once by the offering of the Body of Jesus f." It
is therefore rational to believe that our Saviour, by delivering
the symbols of His Body and Blood sacrificed for our sins
with His own hands to His Apostles, and charging them to
do what He had now done, did intend not only to adminis
ter the Sacrament to them, but to give them authority to
offer and administer it to others. Aaron and his sons were Lev. viii.
by God's direction ordained Mosaical priests by having the
blood of the ram of consecration put on several parts of their
body, and some pieces of that sacrifice into their hands, and

f Heb. x. 10. See part i. p. [202.]

34 INTRODUCTION.

waving them for a wave-offering before the Lord. And the
most ancient form of a Bishop's ordination now extant in
the whole world consists chiefly of a prayer, with imposition
of hands and putting the Bread of the Eucharist into the
hands of the person to be ordained, and so performing the
Oblation *.
The Sacri- I nave alleged the Law of Moses to prove, that it is agree-

flCG of

Christ no able to the nature of a sacrifice to be offered before it was
crifice. S"~ slain, and that it comports with a sacrifice of expiation or
consecration to be offered by the priest, while it is yet alive :
I do not this upon supposition that it is necessary the Sacri
fice of Christ should in all respects answer the standard of
the Levitical Law. A beast killed according to the directions
of Moses's Law in the temple at Jerusalem was certainly a
sacrifice, and therefore whatever rites or modes were used on
such occasions were consistent with the nature of sacrifices;
but it does not therefore follow, that whatever was offered in
any other manner was no sacrifice at all; for there were
other sacrifices besides those, which were offered by the Law
of Moses. We might justly despise that Socinian or Deist,
who should undertake to prove that Christ's Body was no
sacrifice, because no part of It was burnt or otherwise con
sumed; nor the Blood of It sprinkled by any priest upon
the mercy-seat ; or because Christ's was a human body, and
therefore not fit to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar at
Jerusalem ; or because for a priest to offer his own body in
sacrifice was a thing never heard of among the Jews, nor
probably among the Gentiles. Any rational man would
think it a sufficient answer to these cavils, to say, that no
Christian ever thought the Sacrifice of Christ to be a Jewish
or Levitical sacrifice ; that as Christ's Priesthood was distinct
from that of Aaron, so was His Sacrifice from those pre
scribed by the Law of Moses, and from all that had ever
been offered before ; as every thing that is most excellent in
its kind, for that reason, must in some respects differ from all
others. The most solemn sacrifices of expiation among the
Jews were killed by the high-priest, who offered them. It does
not therefore follow, that Christ was not both a Priest and
Sacrifice, because He could not kill Himself. And, indeed,

* a. p. 52. Ap.

INTRODUCTION. 35

under the Law of Moses, a bullock or a goat might be sacri
fices, though killed by a layman; the priest's killing of them
did not render them sacrifices ; for it is certain that the gene
rality of the animals offered to God were slain by the hands
of laymen ; nay, the priest's killing of them did not render
them expiatory sacrifices ; for the common sacrifices for sin
and trespass were killed by those in whose behalf they were Lev. iv. 23.
offered, and yet had an atoning virtue by means of the Divine 35.' n
institution. And when the priest did himself slay the sacri
fice, yet the slaying and the offering of it were actions wholly
distinct. They Were offered, as has been shewed, before they
were killed, and they were again offered afterward by the
sprinkling of their blood ; but that they were offered in and
by the stroke which killed them, cannot be said with any ap
pearance of truth.

It is evident from what has been said, that our Saviour The Jews
offered to God His Body and Blood, under the symbols or
pledges of Bread and Wine. It may safely be granted, that Jj
the Jews had no such sacrifice, in which one bodily thing Eucharist.
or substance was offered as the symbol or representation of
another. It may justly be allowed to be the peculiar pro
perty of the spiritual Sacrifice of Christ, that one thing was
visibly offered, another more excellent thing signified and
effectually represented by it. This may prove that it is no
Jewish sacrifice ; but it is most unreasonable from hence to
conclude, that it is no sacrifice at all. It may as fairly be
argued, that there never was any other temple in the world
besides that at Jerusalem, because probably there never was
any other built precisely and in all respects according to
that model.

As it seems sufficiently evident, that Christ did offer the The time
Sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the figures of Bread pany in
and Wine ; so if we consider the time and company in which Christ offer-
it was done, we shall find them to have been the most proper ed Himself,

most pro-

and agreeable for this most sacred action. As to the time, per.
it was before He was under custody or confinement, while
He was, even to the eye of men, entirely at His own dis
posal. This was a proper season to make the Oblation of
Himself most perfectly available to the ends for which it was
performed ; for, by doing it now, it appeared to be wholly

36 INTRODUCTION.

His own act and deed, flowing from the free motion of His
own will. If He had delayed the doing it till He had been
fastened to the Cross or seized by the officers and soldiers, it
might have been said by His enemies, that He offered Him
self to God to wipe off the reproach of that shameful death
from which He was not able to deliver Himself, and to set
the best gloss He could on His present sufferings, when He
found them to be unavoidable; but by doing it while He
was yet at perfect liberty, He prevented the misconstruction
of the most generous and beneficial action that He ever per
formed. As to the company in which He did it none could
be more agreeable; they were His Apostles, who were before
hand chosen of God to be witnesses of His most glorious ac
tions and stewards of His mysteries. And if it were proper
for all other matters of moment to be transacted in their
presence, it might justly be thought strange, if He had chosen

Matt. xxvi. to perform the principal action of all in their absence. Christ
knew full well that His Apostles would forsake Him, before

John xix. He was crucified; that not one of them, excepting St. John,
could be a witness of what He should do or say, while He
was hanging on the Cross. And certainly that multitude of
bloody Jews, with the band of Roman soldiers, who sur
rounded our blessed Lord during the whole time of His
crucifixion, were the most improper arid disagreeable assem
bly that could have been drawn together from any part of
the world, to be witnesses of the most sacred and solemn
action that ever was done upon earth, I mean, the Priestly
Oblation of the Son of God for the sins of men.

We are to And if Christ gave or oifered Himself in the Eucharist, I

do what '

Christ did presume 1 need not labour to prove, that Priests are to do
eharist U what He then did. We have His express command to " do"
or offer "this in remembrance" of Him; and I have abundantly
demonstrated elsewhere11, that this was the constant unani
mous judgment of the Primitive Church for the first four
hundred years after Christ. We cannot, indeed, offer the
Eucharist as the pledge of Christ's Body hereafter to be
slain; but as the memorial of His Body once already slain
for the sins of men.

St. Paul speaks of the Communion as a Sacrifice. He

h Part i. p. [135,] &c.

INTRODUCTION. 37

charges the Christians at Corinth, "not to be idolaters ;" he iCor. x. 16
means, such idolaters as the Israelites were, when "they sat E

down to eat and drink" before the golden calf; therefore by Sa^nfice-
idolatry he means eating things offered to idols. He again Exod.
cautions them to flee from this idolatry; and uses this argu-
ment against eating things offered to idols, namely, that by
eating of what has been sacrificed men communicate with
that God to whom it was offered. To prove this, he begins
with the Eucharist, and asks, " The Cup of blessing, which
we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?
the Bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
Body of Christ1 ?" True communion consists in giving and
receiving ; and if the Eucharist be the most proper way of
communicating with God, then it must consist in giving
somewhat to Him, and receiving somewhat from Him; and
the Apostle here seems to tell us what we give to God, and
receive again from Him, viz., the Body and Blood of Christ,
signified or represented by Bread and Wine : therefore, in
calling the Eucharist the communion of this Body and Blood,
he at once proves what he intended, and shews that we both
give or offer the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ to
God, and that we have It returned to us again, to make a spi
ritual or religious banquet; and by this means do perfectly
communicate with the One God, which is that he was to prove.
He argues next from the Jewish sacrifices, and observes,
that " they that eat of them are partakers of the altar ;" i Cor. x. 18.
that is, they share the sacrifices between the altar and them
selves ; what is burnt on the altar is God's portion, what they
eat is their own ; and thus by parting the same living creature
betwixt God and themselves, they communicate and are as it
were partners with Him. Then he proceeds to shew the ab
surdity of being communicants with the True, and false Gods,
at one and the same time ; " I would not," says he, " that 1 Cor. x.
ye should have fellowship," or communion " with devils," by
eating things sacrificed to them ; " ye cannot be partakers
of the Lord's Table and the table of devils; ye cannot
drink the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils." The
table of devils is clearly an altar erected to idols; there-

' Phil. iv. 4. " No Church communicated with me as concerning giving and
receiving, but ye only."

38 INTRODUCTION.

fore the Table of the Lord must be the Christian Altar : and
I have elsewhere k shewed at large, that the Table of the Lord
is a title never given to any thing in Scripture but to the
Altar of the True God, and we can be partakers of the Altar of
God only by eating or drinking what has been offered on it.
And this the Apostle intimates, when he says, " We cannot
drink the Cup of the Lord and the cup of devils :" for, as
by the cup of devils he means the liquor offered to idols ; so
by the Cup of the Lord we can reasonably understand nothing
but the consecrated Wine, which must therefore have been
offered to the True God.

And Heb. The same Apostle, at another place, speaks of " an Altar,
xin. 10. whereof they who served the tabernacle/' that is, the Jewish
Heb.xiii. priests, "had no right to eat." Now the Communion-Table
was most usually called an Altar, in the three first centuries
after Christ, as I have shewed on another occasion1. And
whereas the Apostle speaks of eating " of," or from "the Altar™, "
this seems clearly to point to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist,
which was indeed taken from the Altar to be distributed ;
whereas that part of the Jewish sacrifice, which was intended
to be eaten either by the priest or people, was never laid on
the altar, and so could not be taken or eaten from it. Some,
by the Altar, would understand the Cross of Christ ; and by
eating, they would have the Apostle mean, believing in Him ;
and then the sense will be, that the priests who serve the
Jewish tabernacle have no right to believe in Christ. But
this cannot be the Apostle's meaning, because it is not true ;
for both the Jewish priests and people had the right, privi
lege, or power of believing in Christ ; nay, to them and their
children the offer of the Gospel was first made; therefore, by
the Altar, we can rationally understand nothing but the Com
munion-Table ; and, by consequence, the Sacrifice, which we
receive from thence and which the Jewish priests had no
right to eat, is the Eucharist.
And i Tim. The same Apostle tells Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus", "Thou

vi. 12, 13.

k See Part i. p. [408.] the Contents, where I have proved that

1 Part i. p. [405.] the Greek word here used does never

m ©uo-tao-TTjptoi/ exoyuei/, e£ ov fyaystv signify any thing but an oblation or

OVK exov(ri'> f. T.A. sacrifice, in the Greek Translation, or

*» 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13. See Part i. p. in the New Testament.

[224.] and the page immediately after

INTRODUCTION. 39

hast made the good Oblation before many witnesses," and that
Jesus Christ testified, confirmed, or ratified this good Oblation
under Pontius Pilate, that is, while he was governor of Judsea.
This is the plain certain sense of these texts. Now I suppose
it impossible to assign any oblation, that was first testified by
Christ, afterwards offered by Bishop Timothy, except that of
the Eucharist; and of this the Apostle is to be understood,
when he speaks of " the High-Priest of our Oblation," and of
"holding fast our Oblation0."

It has been thought an objection against the Sacrifice of the How Christ
Eucharist, that St. Paul says, Christ was " but once offered ;" once
and if, indeed, He had offered Bread and Wine only, when He ofl
had instituted the Eucharist, and had afterwards on the Cross
made a distinct priestly oblation of His natural Body and
Blood ; then there would have been some force in this objec
tion. But it appears by the account now given, that He did,
as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, under
the pledges of Bread and Wine; that He was afterwards
slain as a Sacrifice on the Cross : but there is no evidence that
He did again on the Cross make the oblation of His Body
and Blood as a Priest ; He finished the Sacrifice of Himself
by entering as a High- Priest into Heaven, the true Holy of
Holies, and He gives life to our Sacrifice, by always appearing
there in the presence of God for us.

Another specious objection against this doctrine is, that it The Sacri-
seems to make the Sacrifice offered by Christ imperfect ; for Eucharist
St. Paul supposes that if the Jewish sacrifices on the day of ex-
piation " could have made the comers thereunto perfect, they
would have ceased to be offered," and not been repeated less per-
every year. And this would indeed be a great difficulty, ifneb.*, 1,
we asserted, as the Papists do, that Christ's natural or sub- 2-
stantial Body is offered in every Eucharist; but this we
absolutely deny. Further, I have formerly proved P, that the
Apostle by "making" the comers to the sacrifices of the Jews
"perfect," does only mean rendering men for ever after capable
of appearing in the public worship of God, without yearly
renewing the sacrifices on the day of expiation, as the Jews
were bound to do. And it is clear, that Christ by His per-

0 Heb. iii. 1; x. 23. Sec Part i. P See Parti, [pp. 178—226,] espe-

[pp. 221, 225.] cially [pp. 203, &c.]

40 INTRODUCTION.

sonal Sacrifice has, in this sense, once for all perfected His
people ; for the priests and people and the very altar of the
Jews were unfit for Divine worship, if they were not yearly
cleansed and purified by the sacrifices offered on the expia
tion day ; but the services of the Christian Church have been
once for ever sanctified by the offering of Christ's natural
Body and Blood. And I must further observe, that the per
fection of Christ's personal Sacrifice cannot be better esta
blished than by asserting, as I have ever done, that the
merits of It are sufficient to give efficacy to the Sacrifice of
the Eucharist for ever after; and that by the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist the merits of the personal Sacrifice are to be ap
plied to the members of Christ's Church, as occasion requires.
That there It may be supposed by some, that, though the Eucharist
administered by our Saviour was a real Sacrifice, because
under tlie Podges of Bread and Wine He offered His own
Body and Blood to God the Father ; and this Body of His
was actually slain, and His Blood shed in a few hours after ;
yet that the Communion, as now administered, cannot be a
Sacrifice, because no natural blood is therein poured out.
But this surmise is grounded on a plain mistake ; and the
mistake is this, that nothing without life and blood can be a
sacrifice. I have proved, and shall effectually prove, the con
trary. In truth, I can find no ground for this fancy, but
only this, that our English translators in the Old Testament
do never give the name of Sacrifice to any thing, but only to
living creatures slain in honour to God. But my reader is
to observe, that there was no reason for this but the will and
pleasure of the translators only. The most ancient trans
lators^, I mean the Greek, who perfectly well understood the
nature of a sacrifice, give this name to a mincha or meal-
offering one hundred and thirty-eight times, to a slain beast
but one hundred and twenty-nine times. Our translators
could not have followed better guides as to this particular.
I do not find that ever any man doubted but that a thing
without life might be a proper sacrifice, until this was found
necessary to serve a present turn; I mean, to subvert the
primitive doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Dr. Ou-

i See Kircher's Concordance, pp. 574, &c.

INTRODUCTION.

41

tramr who is so greatly and justly magnified by these very
men, and Mr. Ains worth8, the most learned of the old Dis
senters, do both expressly affirm that some things without
life were Levitical sacrifices.

Some think it a great objection against this doctrine, that That the
the Eucharist is never expressly called a Sacrifice in the -lsu^ effect
New Testament. Yet these very men do call it a Sacrament, sacrifice in
though neither is that name given to it by the sacred writers. Scripture.
But, certainly, when Christ calls the Bread, "My Body given,"
or offered "for you;" the true sense and meaning is 'My Body
sacrificed for you/ And further, I may dare to say I have
proved beyond all exception*, that when St. Paul speaks of
' an Oblation confirmed' by Christ and offered by Timothy, by
the Oblation he means the Eucharist. And that this word
signifies such an Oblation as is indeed a Sacrifice appears
from this, that even our English translators do twice or
thrice u call that a sacrifice or burnt-offering, which the
Greeks express by the word here used by St. Paul ; and
which therefore may justly be turned Sacrifice here.

r De Sacrific., p. 79. Eorum, quae et
oblata et ritu sacro consumpta erant,
(qualia sola a Judaeis pro sacrificiis
haberi solent) alia erant ex inanimis,
alia autem ex animantibus. Ed. Am-
stelod.

s On Levit. i. 3. " There were five
sorts of sacrifices ordinary, instituted of
God; 'burnt-offerings,' (commanded
here); 'meat-offerings,' (in Lev. ii.);

' peace -offerings,' (in Lev. iii.) ; 'sin-
offerings,' (in Lev. iv.) ; and ' trespass-
offerings,' (in Lev. v. 15.)"

1 See Part i. p. [223,] &c., and page
next after the Contents.

u See Jer. xvii. 26 ; Amos iv. 5 ; in
Ezek. xlv. 12, the homology, or 'free
will-offering' is clearly a ' whole burnt-
offering.'

ADVERTISEMENT.

IT is necessary to state here, that ( Bishop Poynet's Testi
mony/ the ' Animadversions on the Christian Eucharist
rightly stated, &c.' and the ' Reflections on the Defence of
the Bishop of Oxford's Charge/ which in the present Edition
are appended to the Second Volume, occur at the end of the
First in the two original Editions. It may he well to add
that in the Edition of 1724, (i. e. the Second Ed. of the First
Volume,) the following passages were omitted :

From " This gentleman," to " treating his argument and
his antagonist/' Animadversions, p. 321.

— " I desire the reader/' to " his Epistles/' p. 323.
" Saying of grace ?" to "behind them/' p. 324.
"and I will engage/' to "a very sorry one too,"

p. 325.

" This is very arch/' to " a third/' p. 326.

" Here he speaks/' to " comparison," p. 328.

"This I give my reader," to "Body and Blood,''
p. 329.

" The words, which he is so very fond of," p. 329.
to " hunt for such small game as this," p. 330.

— " And here I cannot," p. 331, to " taken the oaths,"
p. 332.

"P. 54. His words," p. 333, to "approbation,"
p. 334.

" P. 131," to "join issue with him," p. 334.

" He introduces this citation," to " any service,"
p. 335.

"P. 173," to "antiquity," p. 339.

" P. 179," to "apologist's reply," p. 340.

— "As before he called," to "common meal," p. 345.

ADVERTISEMENT.

Prom " I know what the Doctor would be at," p. 346, to
" chap. ii. sect. 1," p. 347.

"P. 284," to "overpower us/' p. 356.

" I was surprised," to " by halves," p. 357.

" By the Law of Moses," to " we in ours," p. 358.

" Thus the Doctor," to " the Evangelical Mincha,"
p. 361.

"P. 313. Now to wind up/' p. 363, to "equally
defective," p. 370.

" We have before seen," to " Liturgy." Reflections,
p. 375.

— "I will give him one demonstration," to " sacrificing
Priest/' p. 383.

Besides the above, a few expressions were left out here and
there, wherein our Author, in the 1st Ed. had adopted the
style of personal acrimony, too common in writers of his age.

A DISCOURSE

ON THE

UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, AND ALTAE.

PART II.

CHAP. I.

IN WHICH THE AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT OF THE
EUCHARIST WITH THE SACRIFICES OF THE ANCIENTS IS
CONSIDERED, WITH AN INTENTION TO SHEW, THAT THE
EUCHARIST IS NOT THE LESS A SACRIFICE, BECAUSE IN
SOME RESPECTS IT DIFFERS FROM THE SACRIFICES OF THE
ANCIENTS, AND THAT IT IS INDEED A MORE EXCELLENT
SACRIFICE THAN THEIRS WERE.

SECT. I.

The Eucharist agrees with the most solemn sacrifices of the
ancients in this, that it is attended with a feast upon the
things offered to God.

THE true and full notion of the Eucharist is, that it is a TheEucha
religious feast upon Bread and Wine, that have first been j^ston a
offered in sacrifice to Almighty God, and are become the Sacrifice-
mysterious Body and Blood of Christ. The Papists, both in
their notions and practice, represent it more like a bare Sacri
fice than as a feast on a Sacrifice ; for the generality of their
Masses are nothing else but a mere offering of the Sacrament
to God in their superstitious manner, without any distribu
tion of the holy symbols to the people. Others endeavour
to have it thought nothing more than a religious feast.
These are two faulty extremes. The truth is, that the holy
Eucharist, according to the institution of Christ, and the

44 RELIGIOUS FEASTS

judgment of the ancient Church, is a feast upon a Sacrifice.

That it is a Sacrifice, I have already shewed ; that it is a

feast, I need not take any pains in proving, since it is the uni
versal opinion of all Protestants. The truth is, this Sacra
ment has so long been discoursed of and used as a feast only,
that too many think these two notions contrary to each other ;
and imagine, that if it be a feast, it cannot be a Sacrifice.
Therefore I shall here make it my business to shew, that
these two notions are not only fairly consistent, but that, in
truth, sacrificing and religious feasting are things which God
hath in all ages joined together, and that therefore they
ought by no means to be put asunder.

Theprac- We know not the laws of Divine worship given to the
Jacob and ancients before the Law of Moses. Josephusa indeed tells us,
prove°this ^a^ Noah, when he had sacrificed to God, made a feast for
all his family, though the Scripture mentions no other sacri
fices offered by him but burnt-offerings only. The Septua-
gint make it the fault of Cain's sacrifice, that it was not
rightly divided, too great a share was taken for the feast, too
little left to God ; but the Hebrew differs from them. Yet
Gen. xxxi. it is certain, that " Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and
called his brethren to eat bread, and they did eat bread."
' Eating bread' is a phrase used in Scripture for feasting; and
here it is evident, that Jacob made a feast to his relations of
the cattle which he had offered in sacrifice. Jethro was no
Israelite, and therefore the sacrifices offered by him may
safely be affirmed to have been in all respects agreeable
to the primitive laws of Divine worship ; and of him we
Exod. xviii. are informed, that he ' ' took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for
God, and Aaron came and all the elders of Israel, and eat
bread with him before God." And that this was the practice
of the Israelites, long before the giving of the Law, appears
sufficiently from this ; that Moses and Aaron, in their ad
dress to Pharaoh, use these two phrases b of " holding a feast
to God" and " sacrificing to the Lord," as expressing the very
same sense.

a Lib. i. c. 3. [torn. i. p. 12. Ed. a feast to Me in the wilderness." Ver.

Hudson. Oxon. 1720.] Qvaas T<$ ®e$ 3; "Let us go, we pray thee, three

(rvveuoax^To rols olKfiois. days' journey into tbe desert, and sacri-

h Exod. v. 1 ; "Thus saith the Lord, fice unto the Lord our God."
Let'the people go, that they may hold

MADE ON SACRIFICES. 45

Though feasting upon sacrifice was more ancient than the SECT.
Law, yet it pleased God to give more particular rules and

precise directions concerning the distribution and eating of sacrifices1

the things offered at the altar, in the books of Exodus, Levi- ^i
ticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, than had ever been given
before. The sin-offering and trespass-offering, the first-born
and the meal-offerings were divided between God and the
priests; in the peace-offerings, only the people had their
share ; the burnt-offerings were wholly consumed in the fire,
so that neither the priests nor the people had any portion
reserved for them. But then, it is observed by them who
are best versed in the Jewish learning0, that burnt-offerings
were usually attended with peace-offerings, onlyd some except
such burnt-offerings as were offered for the whole congrega
tion. Therefore we are not to wonder, if Josephus supposes
that Noah's burnt-offerings were accompanied with peace-
offerings, and that he entertained his family with the re
mainder of them. We may therefore safely conclude, that
the generality of sacrifices among the Jews were accompanied
with a feast ; and their very language speaks this ; for the
same word jn signifies both feast and sacrifice.

And what comes nearer to our purpose still is this, that No part of
the Passover, which was the most solemn sacrifice among the ove^was"
Jews, and which God gave in charge to that people before burnt-
the Law or even the Ten Commandments, was to be wholly
eaten; and this was a sacrifice, which, as it was a special
type of the Eucharist, so it exactly agreed with it in this
particular, namely, that God took no portion to Himself, nor
assigned any precise share to the priest; but it became
wholly a feast to the owners, whether priests or laymen.
Dr. Cudworth e, indeed, from an old manuscript of a Karaite
Jew, has cited some words intimating that the inwards of the
Paschal lamb were burnt on the altar. This, if it was to be
relied on as true in fact, is only a proof of what our Saviour
says of the Jews of His age, namely, that " they had made

c See Ainsw. on Exod. xxiii. 15. the burnt-sacrifice."
This indeed seems to be the meaning d See Cudworth'sTrue Notion of the

of that law, Lev. iii. 5, where orders Lord's Supper, [p. 4. Ed. Lond. 4to.

are given concerning the 'fat of the 1642.]
peace-offering,' and it is said, " Aaron's « Ibid., p. [30.]

sons shall burn it on the altar, upon

46 RELIGIOUS FEASTS

CHAP, the commandments of God of none effect, through their

— _ tradition ;" as Bochart long since observed. For certainly,

if there be any law in the five books of Moses easy to be

Exod.xii. understood, this is one, that they should "eat the flesh" of

' ' the lamb, "roast with fire, his head, with his legs, and the

purtenance thereof."

Jewish fes- Further, it is certain, that the devotion of the Jewish
Sited ofn" festivals consisted in offering sacrifices, and entertaining the
sacrifices priests and Levites, the widow, the fatherless, and stranger,
on the flesh and other materials, which they then offered to
God. It is true, they did not on these festivals confine them
selves to eat of nothing else but what was offered in sacrifice ;
but other provision, as the third year's tithe, and the yearly
tithe, was made for this purpose, that priests and Levites,
Israelites and strangers, might " rejoice before the Lord." But
this is evident, that offering sacrifices, and feeding upon these
sacrifices, was the principal part of their festivals ; therefore
on the day of expiation, which was a solemn fast in which
Lev. xvi. both priests and people were to afflict their souls, the bullock
for the priest's sin-offering and the goat for the people's sin-
offering were to be wholly consumed in the fire, no part of
them was to be reserved. These were bare sacrifices, with
out any feast annexed to them ; for the day on which they
were offered was a day of abstinence ; and it is highly pro
bable that every day, on which an occasional sacrifice was
offered for the sin of the high-priest or of the congregation,
according to the directions of the Law, was also kept as a
day of fasting and humiliation, which was one reason why
Lev. iv. 11, those sacrifices were wholly consumed by fire ; but these few
12. 20, 21. exceptions are not sufficient to annul the general rule, viz.,
that religious feasts were the attendants on sacrifice. And
this is not only true of the great feasts, which were enjoined
by the Law, but of such as were upon any singular occasion
appointed by men of character and authority in the Jewish
nation. When Samuel came to Bethlehem to anoint David,
1 Sam. xvi. he tells the elders of the town, " I am come to sacrifice to
the Lord; sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the
sacrifice ; and he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called
them to the sacrifice." This public invitation to the elders,
and particularly to Jesse and his family, imports an enter-

MADE ON SACRIFICES. 47

tainment intended to be made for them upon the heifer, SECT,
which he brought for a sacrifice. And this is further inti- J'
mated in the words of Samuel, when he insisted on having
David sent for; "we will not sit down till he come hither."
We read of such another sacrifice with a feast, in which
Samuel, as a Prophet, seems to have officiated. For the young
maidens tell Saul and his servant, " Behold [Samuel] is 1 Sam. ix.

12 13

before you, for he came to-day to the city ; for there is a
sacrifice of the people to-day in the high-place, — the people
will not eat till he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice,
and afterwards they eat that be bidden." When David,
upon his bringing the ark to Jerusalem, " had offered burnt- 2 Sam. vi.
offerings and peace-offerings before the Lord, he dealt among
all the people a cake of bread, and a flagon of wine, and
a good piece of flesh." And Solomon, when he dedicated
the temple, "offered burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and 1 Kings viii.
peace-offerings ; and at that time Solomon held a feast, and
all Israel with him, fourteen days;" as likewise upon his
first accession to the throne, he " offered up burnt-offer- 1 Kings in.
ings, and peace-offerings, and made a feast to all his ser
vants."

And lest any should wonder that such feasts as were not All the flesh
solemnized by any Divine authority should be ushered in thcPdesert1
with sacrifice, it deserves our particular notice, that the JJcetdsacn~
Israelites, during their pilgrimage in the wilderness, were
not allowed to furnish their private tables with the flesh of
any animal but what had first been offered in sacrifice to the
True God. The Law is very express in this point, " What Lev. xvii.
man soever he be that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the 3' 4' °'
camp, or killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not to
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation to offer an
offering to the Lord, that man should be cut off from among
His people. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon
the altar of the Lord, and burn the fat for a sweet savour
unto the Lord." So that the common meals of the Israelites
for those forty years consisted of peace-offerings; I mean,
as often as they indulged themselves in eating flesh.

It will be very proper to consider the practice of the The Gen-
Gentiles as well as of the Jews, under this head ; for He, on sacrifices
Who is the God of both, may reasonably be presumed toveryearly'

48 RELIGIOUS FEASTS

CHAP, have had a regard to the notions and ancient usages of the
- former, as well as of the latter, in the whole frame of the
Gospel dispensation. And the Scripture affords us sufficient
proof that the heathen, even in the age of Moses, did make
feasts on their sacrifices. Therefore the reason given, why
the Israelites must destroy the altars and images of the
former inhabitants of the land of Canaan is thus expressed,

Exod. "Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land,
and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto
their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice."
The Israelites themselves give us a sample of the method
used by the heathen in this case, which is thus represented

Exod. by Moses, " Aaron built an altar before the golden calf, and

xxxii. 15. , . . . _

made a proclamation, saying, To-morrow is a feast unto the
Lord. And they rose up early in the morning, and offered
burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings, and the people
sat down to eat and drink." We have another notable in
stance of the heathens' practice in this respect, where it is
Numb. xxv. said of the Moabites, "They called the people [of Israel] to
the sacrifice of their gods, and the people did eat, and bowed
down to their gods."

This cus- That this custom continued amongst them in after-ages is
tinned a- sufficiently intimated to us by Isaiah and Ezekiel, who speak
mongthem. Q£ ^& f sitting upon beds/ and 'eating upon the mountains/

Jsa. Ivn. 7 ;

Ezek.xxiii. as the practice of the loose Jews, in which they imitated the

40 41 •

xv'm. ii. heathen. For all that are not utterly unacquainted with
ancient writers cannot but know that the old Eastern people
as well as Romans, did not sit at their tables, as the custom
is now with us, but leaned or lay down on beds or couches ;
nor is it necessary that I should cite Scripture for the proof
of that, which the heathen writers themselves do so abun
dantly testify. Homer, in the descriptions of sacrifices, usually
concludes them with a feast. The first observable sacrifice
mentioned by this ancient writer, offered by Chryses and
sent to him by Agamemnon, was eateiif after it had been first
offered by burning the thighs. At the next sacrifice, six of

1 Avrap tirel Kara /XTjp' e/ca7j, Kal re iravra.

airXayxv' firacravro, Avrap e-rrel iravaavro Tr6vov, TCTU-

T' &pa Ta\\a, Kal a.p.($> Kovr6 re SCUTO,

bfifXoicriv eTreipai/, Aaivvvr* — Iliad. A. ver. 4C4-8. [Ed.

re TTcpKppaSttDS, fpvaavr6 Tauchnitii, 1839.]

MADE ON SACRIFICES. 49

the Greek commanders are invited guests, and Menelaus SECT.

comes unexpected; and he s uses almost the same words in ' —

the description of it, that he had done in the former. He at
another place h gives a relation of a most generous sacrifice
of eighty-one bullocks, at which there were four thousand
five hundred guests sitting, besides Telemachus and his com
pany, who came unexpected. Alcinous1 sacrifices twelve
sheep, eight swine, two bullocks; and makes a feast of them.
I have in the First Part mentioned the sacrifice of Eumseus,
who offered a swine upon Ulysses' coming to him incognito,
and reserved the chine for his guest k, and entertained all
that were with him on the flesh of the sacrifice. The most
particular narrative of a sacrifice is of that offered by Nestor1,
which was also concluded, as the rest, with an entertainment
upon the bullock that had been sacrificed. It were no diffi
cult matter to heap up authorities from other Greek writers,
but I will only mention two from Herodotus. This most
ancient historian"1 speaks of two young men, who having
sacrificed and feasted lay down to sleep in the temple, and
there died. He tells us, in another place, that the Persians,
who used no fire or altars for their sacrifices, had the flesh at
their own disposal; but though this was left to their discre
tion, yet there is good reason to believe, that they applied
the flesh to that use which was most proper, I mean, the
treating of themselves and their friends ; and, indeed, Strabon
does expressly tell us so much. It is well known that the
sacrifices of the Latins differed very little from those of the
Grecians, and therefore there is no occasion to use many
words to prove that they made feasts on the sacrifices which

s Iliad. B. ver. 424. k See Part i. Unbloody Sacrifice, [p.

h 'EzWa 8' e'Spat fffav, irevTrjKdffiot 74.]

8' eV eKaarrj. — Odys. F. ver. 9. Niaroio-iv 8' 'OSiKTTja SiTjt/e/ce'eo'o't yz-

E'laTO, Kal Trpov^ovro e/ca0"ro0t eV- paipfv. — Odys. H. ver. 437.

v4o, Tavpovs. Ol 8' £TT' oveio.&> eVoj/xa irpoKft/Lifj/a

Evd' ol ff-rrXayxv* fira.ffo.vro, 6e$ 8' %e?pas faAAoi/. ver. 453.

firl /j-ripi' ^Krjav. ' This is expressed almost in the

'EvQ' &pa Ne<rTo>p T/<TTO avv vldo~tv same words that are used in the first

apQl 8' ercupoi ver. 32. citation above produced. See Odyss.

AaTr' eWiWfiej/oi, /cpe'a ti-rrrctiV, &\\a F. ver. 461, 470.

T' eTre/poj/. '" '£ls fdvardv re Kal eua>;cTJ0T7<rai', /cora-

— 'AA/aVoos St/o/cotSe/ca /ufjA' c/epeu- /coi/iT70eWes K. T. A. Clio. c. [31.]

<T*V. — Odyss. 0. ver. 59. n MepiffavTos 8e TOV M.dyov TO. Kpea

'OKTW S5 apydSoi/Tas Has, Svo 8' TOV ixprjyovfjLfvov T^J/ lepovpytav atTiaffi

fi\iiroSas ftovs' Si€\6fj.fi^oi} TO?S 0eo?s ovSev aTrovfl/AavTes

Tovs Sepoi/ aiJLQi 6' firov, T€TVKovr6 /uepos. — Lib. 15. circa finem, [p. 1065.

re Sarr' fpa.Ttivi]v. torn. ii. Ed. Amstelodam. 1707. J

JOHNSON. IT

00 RELIGIOUS FEASTS

CHAP, they offered. Virgil makes this practice as ancient as the
- times of Evander °. And, indeed, this way of consuming
sacrifice* lay eating, most hare prevailed more amongst the
Greeks and Latins than ever it did among the Jews; for
whole burnt-sacrifices were the most rare among these
heathen people. They did indeed use them upon come
special occasions; and the most remarkable is that related
by Pauftanias', which was offered by the Boeotians but once
in sixty years, in which not only the vast pile of sacrifices of
all soriiy but the very altar itself, made of timber, was re*
duced to ashes* Bnt, with the Jews, these burnt-offerings
were very frequent, and even common ; and when all the
sacrifice was consumed by fire, there was nothing left to
feast either the priests or people, unless the peace-offerings
made at the same lime had supplied that defect. But since
the generality of the sacrifices of the Gentiles were not
wholly burnt, we may from thence, if we had no other evi
dence, safely •conclude, that they were reserved to entertain
them, at whose erpence they were offered, and their friends,
It is indeed probable that, in the most ancient times, the
heathen did frequently offer whole burnt-sacrifices; but Pro*
metheusi is said to hare introduced the practice of burning
only the loin and thighs, as most acceptable to the gods,
and not so chargeable to the offerers, as when they burned
the whole carcase.

We have a very full and dear evidence, that this custom
*Je/thne, of feasting upon sacrifices continued among the heathen in
the time of the Apostles; for they saw occasion to make a
. decree, that Christians should not eat of things offered or
sacrificed to idols. For the heathen of that age used the

v. rer. 100, 103, 175, 170, jnrentiw

Perpetui fcngo tori* et lu*traJibo»

- torn M0 iiMtpe* Erandnu fo- exti*.

tetet, ' [i «, the Daedala, Vi«L] Patwan.

Una omn** jntetrom priori, paiiiMf- In Bceotie, [lib, i*. cap, iti rot jr. p.

4»e «e»atii», IX Ed, Swrbel. Lip*. JS2*. J

Tura dahaot, ttffchttfo* emor fun*- « See v£*chrlo*, in Prometh, V inert.

bat ad ara«, Prometheu* *ar», rer. [505. Ed. Bkrni-

Towi keti juren«f certatim MV^M fi*ld.

Viscera twrta ferttnt taMranoKy one-

"OMStr **f<f***, tvrrfcttifT*' tit

\, :•.-< -,-:• •-•••' '.•-:--.•• •:-.••• . •-. .-,

Tiirihur jEiMM, fimol et Trojan*

\I XDi: OX SACRIFICES. 51

same art to seduce the Christians and bring them to their SECT.
temples, as the Moabites had formerly done to corrupt the —
Israelites ; they called or invited them to eat of the sacrifices,
which they had offered to their false gods ; and Christ, in the
Ixevelations, mentions some loose men in the Church of Per-
gamos, " who held the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak Rev. ii. 14.
to cast a stumbling-block," that is, 'to eat things sacri
ficed to idols/ There was great reason to forbid Christians
this profane practice ; because, as we lately heard, St. Paul
expressed his sense of this matter, " we cannot be partakers
of the Lord's Table, and the table of devils." It is highly
unfit for Christians, who eat the Sacrifices offered upon the
Altai- of the Church, to defile themselves with meats that
had been sacrificed to what the Gentiles called gods, but
were indeed no better than devils,

Sometimes it is very evident, that the feast was the chief Feasting
end and design, which he who sacrificed proposed to himself;

and, in this case, the person, at whose expence the sacrifice
is made, is said to offer to the guests. So Josiahr is said to
' offer' to the people thirty-three thousand bullocks ; aud the
princes are said to 'offer7 to the people, to the priests and
Levites, two thousand six hundred small cattle, and three
hundred oxen. And five of the chief of the Levites are said
to ' offer/ to the other Levites five thousand small cattle and
five hundred oxen. So Alcinous* " sacrifices" several beasts to
a largo assembly of guests, to whom he had made an invita
tion, as ho did also at another time to entertain Ulysses.
Eumanis1 uses an expression of the same sort upon Ulysses'
arrival. And tor the same reason the Eucharist is by some
of the ancients said to be offered to the people.

Upon the whole, it is evident that a sacrifice and a reli- TheG*n-
gious feast are very near akin to each other; or, rather, they nifti"
are but two parts of the same worship, which both among Wamed*
Jews and Geutiles used to go hand in hand together : and
that, therefore, it is so far from being inconsistent with the

r 2 Chron. xxxv. 7, 8. 9. D'ln eer- And Rgftin, upon riyvtm' owning,

tniuly signifies to % ofler,' as it is ren- Alcinous says,

dered by our translators in the margin. Htlrov M pryetpou {etWowfici', ^tt

• Toifftv V *AAic(*o0s SuoircuScira /ui}A* Q<o?<ru>

r«p«wr«*— Odys. e. v. 59. 'Proper icp* icaA*— Odjs. H. vcr.

t "AW tor rfcr a>«rro»-. fat {cly? 190.
ttpfwru. — Odys. B. ver. 414.

F. 2

52 RELIGIOUS FEASTS

CHAP. Sacrament, as it is a feast, to be also a Sacrifice, that it may
- rather seem reasonable to argue, that if it be a religious feast
it is most probable it is a Sacrifice ; since it is very evident
that all mankind, when our Saviour came into the world,
joined sacrificing and feasting together. We are not to think
it a fault in the Gentiles that they did this, since it is evi
dent that the Jews did so too. The fault of the Gentiles
was not this, that they feasted upon their sacrifices ; for
God's people ever did the same. Their fault was, that they
both sacrificed and feasted in honour to false gods. The
other Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ with a
regard to the settled notions and practice of the heathen as
well as Jews; for they both used washing with water, as a
rite of religious purgation. And it is full out as rational to
believe, that God had some consideration of them in making
the chief ordinance of our religion a Sacrifice as well as a
feast ; since they, as well as the Jews, had accustomed them
selves to perform both at once. I do not say that there
never was any religious feast made upon meats and drinks,
which had not been first offered to God in sacrifice ; but I
may safely affirm, that the most solemn religious feasts were
always of this sort; such were the Passover, and the two
other annual feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles among the
Jews. And, therefore, if the Eucharist be not a feast of a
very inferior rank, and in its nature entirely different from
the most solemn religious feasts of former ages, it must be
confessed to be a Sacrifice too.

Not the It is true, that among the Jews the whole sacrifice was not

fice!butan"usually allowed to be eaten, but some part to be burnt on the

ene- as G°(Ts share; yet this was not necessary to make it a

rally of old. sacrifice, as appears from this, that the Passover was wholly
Exod.xxiii. to be eaten, and yet it was God's peculiar sacrifice. The
25.' X T' blood of it indeed was not to be eaten or drunk ; not because
it was the blood of a sacrificed creature, but because it was
blood, and therefore absolutely forbidden to the Israelites.
And, if we inquire into the practice of the Gentiles, we shall
find that they had divers sacrifices, which were entirely con
verted into food for the entertainment of the priests and
them who brought it to the altar. This was the common
practice of the Persians, as appears from what was just now

MADE ON SACRIFICES. 53

cited from Strabo. It is well known, that the great Pytha- SECT.
gorasu offered no sacrifices but what were unbloody; and it
is further to be observed, that he chose to pay his devotions
at the altar of Delos, which was called 'the Altar of the Godly;'
and this was an altar " without fire," and on which therefore
nothing could be burnt; but the custom was to place corn
and cakes upon it. This was his method of offering sacrifice;
and that therefore what he offered was designed for the enter
tainment of those who attended the altar, seems most pro
bable. Of all the uncouth notions contrived in opposition
to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, none have betrayed greater
ignorance in the contrivers of them, than that of a certain
writer, who will allow no part of the beast to have been
properly sacrificed but that which was burnt on the altar.
It is evident, this man does not know the very terms of the
subject on which he writes. The part burnt on the altar is
by Moses called isheh, that is, the burnt portion, /cdpTrcofjua
in Greek, ignitum in Latin ; the offering made by fire, in
English : but the whole beast brought to the altar always
passes by the name of corban, ' gift/ f oblation/ or else of ze-
bach, that is, the slain sacrifice. And if the whole beast had
not been sacrificed, it would have been impossible for men
to have been guilty of eating flesh sacrificed to idols, as i Cor. x.
many were in the Apostle's times.

Further, it will appear upon an impartial examination,
that a Sacrifice wholly eaten and drunk by the worshippers
is most agreeable to the nature of the True God to Whom
it is offered. For,

I. This is a clear demonstration that the Sacrifice is not Eucharist
intended as a boon or benefit to God, but for the advantage bei *'
of them who offer it. It was the common opinion
the heathen, that their gods entertained themselves and benefit-

u ®e(i)p7J<rai Se e<rrli> e'/c rov irepl upon some discovery made in Geometry,

ArjAoi/ ert vvv aw^optvov jSw^oG' irpbs sacrificed a bullock. Cicero, lib. iii. De

$>v ovOevbs Trpocrayofjifvov trap' avrols, Nat. Deorum, [c. 88.] declares he can-

eV avrov fwou, fvfff&wv not believe this, because it is well

ng

K€K\rjTai &<ap.6s. — Porphyr. De Absti- known that Pythagoras did not offer
nent., lib. ii. p. 73. [Ed. Cant. 1655.] living creatures. Porphyry therefore
— 'Ape\fL Kaiflu/jibviroa-KvvriffaL j.6- does with reat robabilit sa it was

does with great probability say, it was
yov eV A^Ay — Sia rb nvpovs Kal KpiQais the effigies of a bullock made of paste.
Kal TO Tv6irava jUoi/a Tt06(r0ot €7r' avTOv [ ffiov6vTr)cre Sen-ore crrainvov, a>y <f>acri,
&vfv TTvp6s.— Diogen. Laert. in Vit. flow, ol &Kpi0f<rrepoi. — De Vita Pytha -
Pythag., p. [217.] gora?, p. 196, Ed. Cant.]

It is commonly said that Pythagoras,

54 RELIGIOUS FEASTS

CHAP, were refreshed with the scents, which proceeded from the

'- steams of the flesh and other things burnt upon their altars ;

and what was so burnt was esteemed their share and portion
of the sacrifice. God, for reasons which I shall not pretend
to unfold, required a share to be given to Him out of the
generality of the sacrifices offered by the Patriarchs and Is
raelites ; and in some cases He commanded the whole sacri
fice to be consumed by fire, which was always esteemed a
giving or presenting it entirely to Him ; and, for this cause,
what was burnt was called the Bread or Food of God. This
gave occasion to gross thoughts in some poor unthinking men,
and to cavil in those that were loose and irreligious. The
first conceited, that God had a sort of hungry appetite after
the smoke of meat broiled upon His altar ; the others from
thence took a handle for scoffing at all religion and Divine
worship, of which Sacrifice was always thought the principal ;
because it seemed to suppose that God stood in need of sup
plies from His own creatures. But now, in the Christian
Sacrifice, there is no room left for any such misapprehensions,
but it is effectually declared that God is never the better for
what we offer to Him, and that though He accept our services,
yet He does not want them; and for this reason what we
offer is wholly restored to us again for the food of our souls
and bodies.

As being 2. Our Sacrifice is too excellent to be treated as the sacri-
to^rbilnrt. fices of the Jews and heathens were, that is, to be burnt in
the fire : for the Bread is made the mystical Body of Christ,
the Wine His mystical Blood ; and to consume these in the
fire, or to treat them, as Jews or heathen did the cattle or
other things they offered, would savour of impiety and pro-
faneness. We are indeed informed, that some* did of old
cast the Sacramental Body and Blood in the fire, when it was
grown so stale as to be offensive ; but this was only to pre
serve it from greater and more unbecoming indignities, and
was practised but by few, and not willingly or of choice, but
when they could find no better way to dispose of it.
It is a sober 3. The feast made upon the Eucharist is only a sober
and modest refreshment ; for it has been and is the practice
of Christians to taste of the holy symbols rather than to fill

* See [Bishop Poynet's Diallacticon, p. 16.]

MADE ON SACRIFICES. 55

their stomachs with them. Whereas, on the other side, the SECT.
heathen and Jews used to eat and drink very plentifully of —

their sacrifices, and even to intemperance and drunkenness.
Among the heathen, to have 'assisted at a sacrifice' was but
another phrase for being drunk y. The Jews2 took four large
draughts at their Passover, and were to be right-down drunk
at the feast of Purim ; and this probably gave occasion to the
intemperance of the Christians at Corinth in their love-feasts,
which they seem to have kept in the Church, before they re
ceived the Eucharist ; for these people had been bred in the
Jewish or heathen religion, and though they were now con
verts to Christianity, yet it seems they had not sufficiently
learned the difference between the way of feasting among the
Christians and among heathen and Jews.

The Eucharist is a spiritual feast, and refreshes and And
strengthens the soul much more than the body. The Sa- SteaSiL
craments are channels of grace; the Body and Blood of
Christ in the Eucharist are what they are by virtue of the
Holy Ghost, and there all pious communicants " are made to i Cor. xii,
drink into the One Spirit."

5. The Eucharist is a Sacrifice, which was never intended
by our Saviour to be offered but in order to the following
feast; and this feast was designed for the people as well as priest,
for the poor as well as the rich. This cannot be said of the
generality of the Jewish sacrifices. The common offerings
for sin were attended with a feast, but none but the priests
had any share of them; the burnt-offerings were wholly
consumed with fire, the peace-offerings were divided between
the priests and those who brought them to the altar; but no ob
ligation laid on them to let the poor share with them, except
only in those which were offered at their feasts of Weeks and Deut. xvi.

11 14

Tabernacles. It does not appear that the rich were obliged
to call their poor neighbours to partake with them even in
the Passover itself; and when great men entertained the poor
upon the remains of their sacrifices, this was an effect of their
liberality, to which no law compelled them. Philo3, indeed,

? — functusque sacris, et potus et inter Philonis Opera, torn. ii. Ed. Man-

exlex.— Horat. Art. Poet. [v. 224. Ed. gey, 1742.] Au<rl 8e fj.6va.is

Amar. Paris. 1825.] e'TrtrpeVei rrjv xpyvw T^s T0*> c

z See Dr. Whitby on 1 Cor. xi. 21. Bvffias iroie'icrOa.L, /j.r)fifv fls rfy

a [De Animalibus sacrificio idoneis, d.7ro\fiirovTas — '6n ras Gucrias ara/j.itv~

56 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES

CHjAP- giyes this as a reason why the flesh of peace-offerings was all

- to be eaten within two days after it had been killed, namely,

that God intended them not to be pantry ed, but to be eaten

Psalm xxii. by those who wanted ; and when David " paid his vows." he

2*5 2fi

declared " the poor should eat and be satisfied." This proves
that good and generous men put the best construction upon
a mere ceremonial law ; but the Eucharist was a Sacrifice, in
which from the beginning, Priest and people, rich and poor,
did ever feast together. These are the excellencies of the
Eucharist, considered as a feast upon a sacrifice.

CHAP. I. SECT. IT.

The Eucharist agrees in the main with the most solemn sacri
fices of the ancients, in the ends for which it is offered.

The ends or designs of men in offering sacrifice have always
been the same in all ages and nations ; these are of two
sorts, viz.

First, particular, Secondly, general.

I. There are particular ends and designs, which men have
always proposed to themselves in offering every sacrifice;
these ends are various, but may be reduced to these follow
ing heads :

1. One particular end of sacrifice is, to render prayers or
petitions for some special mercy more effectual.

2. Another end is, to express a grateful sense of some
mercies or favours received.

3. A third end is, the expiating the guilt of sin, or obtain
ing pardon.

II. The general end of sacrifice is,

1. To acknowledge the power and dominion of that God
to whom it is offered.

2. To render him gracious and favourable to the wor
shippers.

rovs flvai irpocr^Kfi, Kal vcLffiv els /j,fffov flesh of peace-offerings, viz., that they

irpoKfiffQai TOIS Seo/xej/ots. The last do <f>fiS(t)\iav <pL\avQp(airias

word seems to signify ' the indigent,' by prefer frugality before charity.
what he says of them, who lay up the

ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 57

3. To preserve covenant and communion with him. SECT.

II.

I will first consider the particular ends which men of old
might and ought to propose to themselves in offering sacri
fice, and shew that Christians, in the Sacrifice of the Eucha
rist, may and ought to propose to themselves the same ends
that the ancients did in offering their sacrifices.

1. THE first of these ends is, to render any particular prayers First parti-
and petitions more effectual for procuring good or averting of Sacrifice

evil. We may know for what end Noah offered burnt-
offerings, by considering the answer that God made to ceptabie
his devotion, which was this ; " I will not again curse the 20— 22"'
ground for man's sake, nor will I again smite every living
thing ; while the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and f
cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night,
shall not cease." This was what he intended to ask God by
his sacrifice, and it was accordingly granted. David prayed to
God, when he saw the Angel smiting the people of Jerusa
lem; he confessed his sin and said, "Lo, I have sinned, and I 2 Sam.
have done wickedly ; let Thine hand, I pray Thee, be against SjTotam.
me and my father's house, and not against Thy people ;" but xxi- 17-
this was net sufficient, till he had offered burnt-offerings
and peace-offerings ; and upon his doing this, " the Lord was job xiii.
intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel." '
And the prayers of Job were not sufficient without a sacrifice
offered by Eliphaz and his friends. Saul, to make an excuse
for his having offered sacrifice, tells Samuel that he appre- i Sam. xiii.
hended the Philistines would come down upon him to Gilgal,
and (says he) " I have not made supplication to the Lord ; I
forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt-offering." He
speaks according to the received notion of those times,
namely, that to make supplications and offer sacrifice was
the same thing; he would never have been guilty of that
presumption that he was, in invading the priest's office, if he Baruch i.
had thought that prayer without sacrifice was as proper and
effectual as with it. The king and people of Judah under
captivity raise contributions for sacrifices to be offered at
Jerusalem for the king of Babylon and for themselves ; and
in the letter, which they sent to Jerusalem upon this occasion,

58 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES

CHAP, they desire " burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, incense, and meat-
— offerings, to be offered on the altar, and that prayers may be
made for the life of Nabuchodonosor, and for themselves."
. And all the peace-offerings of the Jews, (except the thaiik-
offerings, and vows, and festival sacrifices,) together with the
burnt-offerings, were designed to procure some special favour
of God, or to give greater force to the wishes and prayers
of particular men upon extraordinary occasions. By this it
appears, that it was a prevailing notion among God's people
of old, that to render prayers successful it was proper to
enforce them with sacrifice ; and it is not probable that a
captive king and people would have been at so much cost for
the purchasing of sacrifice, if they could have believed that
it had been as acceptable to God to make their addresses to
Him by words and thoughts only.

The Gen- It is certain, that the heathen had the same conceptions
this notion in this particular. Cyrus had such an opinion of Sacrifice,

of sacrifice. ^at ^g comman^s a portion of the tribute of Ccelo-Syria and
Phcenice to be appropriated for buying bullocks, rams, lambs,
corn, salt, wine, and oil, according to the direction of the
i Esdras priests, that " offerings might be made to the most High God
vi. 29—31. £or ^e kjng an(^ -j^g children, and that they might pray for
Ezra vi. 9, their lives :" and Darius renewed this edict almost in the same
words. Pliny, who was excellently well acquainted with the
notions and practices of the ancient Romans, saysb, " they
made their supplications with a salted cake •" this salted cake
was the known sacrifice of Numa the second king of Rome,
and his people. Virgilc speaks of " prevailing in prayer by
means of a bullock slain for sacrifice," and of d " carrying a
cause with Juno by oblations which were full of intreaty or
persuasion." Sophocles6 supposes sacrifices necessary to the
offering prayers for deliverance with success ; and f he repre
sents things as in the last extremity, when prayers offered
with sacrifice are rejected.

h Nee minus propitii [Dii] erant e ["Eiraipe 8)7 <TU 6iifj.aG' rj trapovffa.

mola salsa supplicantibus. — Nat Hist., /iot]

lib. xii. c. 18. TLa.yKapir' , &VO.KTI r<^5' STTWS AUTTJ-

c Hie Helenus, caesis primum de piovs

more juvencis, Elects avdcrxca. — Sophoc. Electr.,

Exorat pacem Divum. — ./En. 3. ver. 634-6.

d Junoni cane vota libens, domi- f [K^r'ou Sfxoi>Tai dvtrrdSas At

namque potentem ©eol trap1 f]/j.u>v ouSe pypicov

Supplicibus supera donis. — ibid. — Antigone, v. 1019.]

ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 59

2. Another particular end of sacrifice is, to express a SECT.
grateful sense of mercies or favours received ; and this is a
head, on which there is no occasion for me to enlarge, because
all will I suppose readily grant it ; and, indeed, thanks and
praise are but one branch of prayer, and that which renders
men's petitions more acceptable must of consequence make
our thanks so too. And I need no other argument to prove
that Sacrifice makes our praises more acceptable but only
this, that God did always require His people by this means
to declare the inward gratitude of their hearts. Not only
the Passover was intended to be a constant memorial of His
mercy to the Israelites in delivering them from the Egyptian
bondage, but5 all the stated festivals of the year had their
peculiar sacrifices appointed and assigned to them. And
that this was the settled judgment of all the people of old
is evident from this, that both Jews and Gentiles universally
agreed in sending up their praises to Heaven upon all ex
traordinary occasions with plentiful fumes of sacrifice and
incense.

But because men have been used of late, when they hear Sacrifices of
of ' sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving/ to understand
nothing by those phrases but singing psalms and hymns or
offering up to God grateful words and thoughts, I therefore
think it necessary to observe to my reader, that by these ex
pressions we are generally, if not always, to conceive material
sacrifice to be meant by the holy writers ; and that this is
true, you will perceive by the following texts ; " The flesh of Lev. vii. 15.
the sacrifice of peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten
the same day as it is offered ; and when ye will offer a sacri- Lev. xxii.
fice of thanksgiving, offer it at your own will, on the same
day it shall be eaten." Hezekiah charged the people to " bring 2 Chron.
sacrifices and thank-offerings into the house of the Lord ;
and the congregation brought sacrifices and thank-offerings,
and as many as were of a free heart burnt-offerings ;" and in
the account of Manasseh's conversion it is said, " He repaired 2 Chron.
the altar of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon peace-offerings
and thank-offerings." And I have elsewhere11 shewed, that
we are to understand this phrase in the same sense in other
places of Scripture, and that a sacrifice of praise signifies that

e Read Lev. xxiii. ; Numb, xxviii. xxix. h See Part i. p. [380,] &c.

60 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES

CHAP, bullock or other substantial thing, which is offered to God as
an acknowledgment for His mercies.

Third par- 3. The third particular end of offering sacrifice has
always been, to expiate guilt, and obtain pardon of sin and
freedom from punishment. To this purpose the Jews had

sacrifice their sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and the Gentiles

or un- their hilastic or piacular victims. In this case the beast was
)ody* thought to be killed instead of the man, who by sin had
forfeited his life ; and Dr. Outram has so learnedly proved
this from the concurrent opinions of Christians, Jews, and
heathens, that there is no occasion for me to labour in this
point. And it was this that put the heathen upon offering
men in sacrifice for the expiation of their guilt ; for in this
case they thought no perfect satisfaction could be made but
by causing some other person to die instead of the offender.
This, Caesar1 assures us, was the principle upon which the
ancient Gauls sacrificed men ; and it is not improbable, that
the idolatrous Jews offered their own children to Moloch
upon the same pretence ; for it seems these unnatural sacri
fices were generally performed for expiation, as the Prophet

Mich. vi. 7. Micah intimates in these words, " Shall I give my firstborn
for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my
soul?" Yet it does not appear to me, that God did demand
living creatures to be offered to Him by the Jews for their
sins upon this consideration; though the latter Jews-* had
such a notion prevailing amongst them.

Some of late are willing to suppose, that nothing but blood
can expiate guilt. Now it is certain/ that the ancient Jews

i Sam. had no such notion ; David supposes, that though God were
19. go disp}easec:i as to stir up Saul against him, yet He might
be pacified by a mincha or meal-offering; and God Him
self, to express the heinousness of the sin of Elik and his
sons, says, " It shall not be purged with slain beast or meat
offering for ever :" by which is plainly implied, that the latter

1 Qui sunt affecti gravioribus mor- arbitrantur. — De Bell.Gal.l. vi. [c. xv.]

bis, quique in prseliis periculisque ver- J Vid. Outram, p. 231.

santur, aut pro victimis homines im- k 1 Sam. iii. 14. It is observable,

molant, aut se immoiaturos vovent, that the LXX here turn ni"l3£, mincha,

adrm'nistrisque ad earn rein Druidibus by Qvaia ' Sacrifice,' and rQf> zebach,

utuntur: quod pro vita hominis, nisi flu/Ja^o, which does not so usually

vita hominis reddatur, non posse aliter and expressly signify ' sacrifice ' as the

Deorum immortal him nnmen placari former does.

ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. Ql

was as effectual to the purpose of taking away guilt as the SECT.
former, and the offering of fine flour was as real a means - — ^-^
of making an atonement for sin, as all the cattle upon a
thousand hills1. The ancient heathen believed, that a cake
or a little meal was as proper and effectual to expiate sin as
the largest bullock ; and therefore St. Paul does not say ab
solutely, "All things are purified with blood, and without
shedding of blood is no remission;" but he qualifies these
expressions by adding ' almost.'

These three I call the particular ends of Sacrifice, because
the ancients chiefly proposed to themselves some one of these
ends in every sacrifice they offered. The occasion of sacri
ficing was, either to obtain some blessing, or to express their
thanks and praise for some blessing already received, or else
to procure forgiveness of sin, and to pacify the wrath of God,
and be discharged from that punishment which was due for
their sins; but

2. There were other general ends of Sacrifice, to which the
ancients had an eye in all the sacrifices which they offered,
over and above the particular ends which I have already
mentioned. These general ends were

1. The acknowledgment of God's dominion, and other at- First gene-
tributes. And this is implied in all sacrifices offered to Him : owning' *
for it would be to no purpose to worship and honour Him G?d.'s do~

mmion.

with our substance, if we did not believe Him to be that
Almighty Being, Who made and governs the world, and will
hereafter judge it; arid Sacrifice is that worship, which God
hath always required of His people. Even before the giving
of the Lawm, 'serving God' and 'sacrificing to God' were
phrases of the same import. God sufficiently declares by
the Prophet Isaiah, that He accepted sacrifice as an honour isa. xim.
done to Him, when He reproves the Israelites for not honour- 23'

iray/tapira, — OTTWJ \VTT?)- reason, why the ancients said, ' Far

pious pium ;' " quid enim est pium nisi cas-

EVX&S avaffxo- — Sophoc. Elec., turn? quoniam piare est propitiare."

ver. 635. I will add the trite verses of Ovid to

Servius proves this, ^Eneid. v. p. 406, this purpose,

from these words of Horace, Ante, Deos homini quod conciliare

Mollibit aversos Penates valeret,

Farre pio et saliente mica. Far erat, et puri lucida mica salis.

And from that of Tibullus, Farre [Fast, lib. i. v. 337.]

pio placant, et saliente mica. m Compare Exod. iv. 23 with Exod.

And on Eclog. viii. he gives this v. 3.

60 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES

CHAP, bullock or other substantial thing, which is offered to God as

— an acknowledgment for His mercies.

Third par- 3. The third particular end of offering sacrifice has
to expiat? always been, to expiate guilt, and obtain pardon of sin and
ther\kehe~ freedom from punishment. To this purpose the Jews had
sacrifice their sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and the Gentiles

were bloody . T , . ,, -.

or un- their hilastic or ptacular victims. In this case the beast was
bloody. thought to be killed instead of the man, who by sin had
forfeited his life ; and Dr. Outram has so learnedly proved
this from the concurrent opinions of Christians, Jews, and
heathens, that there is no occasion for me to labour in this
point. And it was this that put the heathen upon offering
men in sacrifice for the expiation of their guilt ; for in this
case they thought no perfect satisfaction could be made but
by causing some other person to die instead of the offender.
This, Caesar1 assures us, was the principle upon which the
ancient Gauls sacrificed men ; and it is not improbable, that
the idolatrous Jews offered their own children to Moloch
upon the same pretence ; for it seems these unnatural sacri
fices were generally performed for expiation, as the Prophet
Mich. vi. 7. Micah intimates in these words, " Shall I give my firstborn
for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my
soul?" Yet it does not appear to me, that God did demand
living creatures to be offered to Him by the Jews for their
sins upon this consideration; though the latter Jews-* had
such a notion prevailing amongst them.

Some of late are willing to suppose, that nothing but blood
can expiate guilt. Now it is certain, 'that the ancient Jews
i Sam. had no such notion ; David supposes, that though God were
xxvi. 19. go displease^ as ^o stir up Saul against him, yet He might
be pacified by a mincha or meal-offering; and God Him
self, to express the heinousness of the sin of Eli k and his
sons, says, " It shall not be purged with slain beast or meat
offering for ever :" by which is plainly implied, that the latter

1 Qui sunt affecti gravioribus mor- arbitrantur. — De Bell.Gal.l. vi. [c. xv.j
bis,quique in praeliis periculisque ver- J Vid. Outram, p. 231.

santur, aut pro victimis homines im- * j Sam. iii. 14. It is observable,

molant, aut se immoiaturos vovent, that the LXX here turn nilJlD, mincha,

administrisque ad earn rem Druidibus by 0v<n'a ' Sacrifice,' and ,121, zebach,

utuntur: quod pro vita hominis, nisi Ov/mia/ma, which does not so usually

vita hominis reddatur, non posse aliter and expressly signify 'sacrifice' as the

Deorum immortal ium numen placari former does.

ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 61

was as effectual to the purpose of taking away guilt as the SECT.

Lev. v. 13.

former, and the offering of fine flour was as real a means

of making an atonement for sin, as all the cattle upon a
thousand hills1. The ancient heathen believed, that a cake
or a little meal was as proper and effectual to expiate sin as
the largest bullock ; and therefore St. Paul does not say ab
solutely, "All things are purified with blood, and without
shedding of blood is no remission ;" but he qualifies these
expressions by adding f almost/

These three I call the particular ends of Sacrifice, because
the ancients chiefly proposed to themselves some one of these
ends in every sacrifice they offered. The occasion of sacri
ficing was, either to obtain some blessing, or to express their
thanks and praise for some blessing already received, or else
to procure forgiveness of sin, and to pacify the wrath of God,
and be discharged from that punishment which was due for
their sins ; but

2. There were other general ends of Sacrifice, to which the
ancients had an eye in all the sacrifices which they offered,
over and above the particular ends which I have already
mentioned. These general ends were

1. The acknowledgment of God's dominion, and other at- First gene-
tributes. And this is implied in all sacrifices offered to Him : ^ng the
for it would be to no purpose to worship and honour Him G?d.'s do~

*• * J minion.

with our substance, if we did not believe Him to be that
Almighty Being, Who made and governs the world, and will
hereafter judge it; arid Sacrifice is that worship, which God
hath always required of His people. Even before the giving
of the Law"1, 'serving God' and ' sacrificing to God' were
phrases of the same import. God sufficiently declares by
the Prophet Isaiah, that He accepted sacrifice as an honour isa. xim.
done to Him, when He reproves the Israelites for not honour- 28'

a) TrdyKapira — OTTW? Aim?- reason, why the ancients said, ' Far

piovs pium ;' " quid enim est pium nisi cas-

Evxas avdcrxoo. — Sophoc. Elec., turn? quoniam piare est propitiare."

ver. 635. I will add the trite verses of Ovid to

Servius proves this, yEneid. v. p. 406, this purpose,

from these words of Horace, Ante, Deos homini quod conciliare

Mollibit aversos Penates valeret,

Farre pio et saliente mica. Far erat, et puri lucida mica salis.

And from that of Tibullus, Farre [Fast., lib. i. v. 337.]

pio placant, et saliente mica. m Compare Exod. iv. 23 with Exod.

And on Eclog. viii. he gives this v. 3.

64 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES

CHAP. Abihu, for offering strange fire, were struck dead upon the
— spot. It was well known, that the heathen r endeavoured to
ape the Jewish rites in this as well as other particulars.
And even they who did not pretend to have this heavenly
fire, yet always supposed, that their gods8 feasted with them
and pleased themselves with the reeks and steams which
proceeded from their altars; nay, that they did, in some
Deut. sense, " eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drink the wine of
their drink-offerings," as Moses expresses their notion in
this point. And latterwards, it is well known, [the] practice
prevailed of placing the images of the gods, to whom they
sacrificed, on rich beds at the most honourable part of the
tables, which were furnished with meats and drinks offered
to them; so that the gods were made, as it were, visible
guests at their religious feasts.

Now eating and drinking together at the same table has
always been deemed a token of friendship, mutual commu
nion, and striking or preserving covenant with each other.
Upon this ground, Sacrifice has ever been thought to imply
the closest communion with God that men are capable of in
Psalm i. 5. this life. God says of His people, that they " made a cove
nant with Him by sacrifice;" for though He "cannot eat
bulls' flesh, or drink the blood of goats," as the heathen be
lieved their idols did, yet He always approved and kindly
received sacrifices, offered to Him with a pious and well-
affected mind ; He was as well pleased with these sacrifices,
Gen. viii. as if he had really " smelt a sweet savour" or an agreeable
9. 13 ; ii. 2. perfume from the fire on the altar ; and, in return for these
I' &2c m sacrifices, He always bestowed on devout worshippers His
promised blessings. And thus there was a mutual commerce
between God and those who sacrificed to Him in such a

r Tev£av 8' airvpois If pots "A.\ffos fv Greeks and Romans had the perpetual

a/cpoTT^Aet. — Pindar. Olymp. fire. [p. 66. b. Ed. Francofurt. 1599.]

Od. 7. [Ed. Tauchn. 1829.] s Ei/x*o vvv, & |e2Ve, TIo<Tei5dcai>i

Nee longe inde collis Vulcanius, in Hycutri'

quo qui Divinse rei operantur, ligna ToO yap ical Sairrjs r)VT7]<raTe, Sevpo

vitea super aras struunt ; nee ignis ap- yuoA<Wes. — Odys. F. ver. 43.

ponitur in hanc congeriem, cum pro- Atel jap TO irdpos ye Qeol fyaivovrai

sicias intulerint. Si adest Deus sa- evapyets

crorum probator, sarmenta, licet vi- 'fyuj/, eSr' epS&yiej/ o/ya/cAeiras

ridia, ignem sponte concipiunt, et nullo e/carOjU/Sas'

inflagrante halitu, a Numine fit incen- Aaivwral TC trap* &fj./j.i /ca^^ueVot,

dium. Solinus, cap. xi. Plutarch, in %v9a irtp rj/j.e'is. — Odys. H. ver.

the Life of Numa, observes, that both 201.

ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 65

manner as He had appointed; there was a continual ex- SECT.
change of homages and services. received, and of graces and -

favours returned, between God and those who attended His
altar as priests or suppliants. There was one particular cir
cumstance required of all that offered sacrifice ; and that is,
that it should be " seasoned with salt." This was not only
the practice of the Jews, but of the heathen too*. Homer u
constantly mentions the seasoning of the sacrifice, and
Moses explains this rite, when he charges every oblation of
the meal-offering to be seasoned with salt, and adds, "Neither Lev.ii. 13.
shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be
lacking from thy meat-offering ;" for as salt was esteemed a
symbol of friendship and alliance, so by this text is intimated
to us, that God intended by the use of it in their sacrifices
to perpetuate the covenant betwixt Himself and the Israelites.
And when all this is rightly considered, it will appear evident
beyond dispute, that sacrifices were always designed to be a
means of continuing covenant and communion betwixt God
and the worshippers.

It is certain the heathen carried this notion to an extrava- Extrava
gant height, when they conceited that their gods did really fSea°then
take their share in what was offered to them, and perhaps some m.thls
of the more carnal Jews had the same notion concerning the
True God and the sacrifices offered to Him ; but this was a
very gross and corrupt imagination. All that was in truth
designed by God, in demanding some part or the whole sacri
fice to be burnt on His altar, was only to shew His accept
ance of their devotion and good-will in offering to Him of
the best they had, and [His] rewarding their service by
granting the boon which they asked. And if the use of fire

* Plin. [Nat. Hist, lib. xxxi.] c. 7. from Trdcr(ro/j.ai, not from ndo/nai, as is

Nulla (Sacra) conficiuntur sine mola vulgarly believed ; and I am the more

salsa. confirmed in this, when I observe that

u He not only speaks of the ov\o- in relating the sacrifice of Achilles he
XUTCU or ov\al in all his descriptions of omits the words (nr\dyxi/' Iwtowra,
sacrifice, one ingredient of which was and instead thereof says, Tldao-f 8' a\bs
always salt ; but he generally says Be'toio. — II. I. ver. 214. Mem. 7ra<r<ro>
(nrXdyxv' MuNPTOt by which I cannot makes irdffto in the future, and by con-
but think he meant that ' they salted sequence eiraaa in the first aorist active,
the entrails.' He cannot mean that ^Traad/j.r}v in the middle voice. Mr.
they eat them, for he always men- Pope's translation favours this sense,
tions it before the roasting of them; "The thighs thus sacrific'd, and en-
therefore I conceive he meant to in- trails drest,
form us, that they sprinkled them with Th' assistants part transfix, and roast
salt, and that therefore iirdvano comes the rest."

66

ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES

rist serves
all these
ends.

CHAP, in sacrifice were only to denote God's acceptance, then it

- will unavoidably follow, that fire cannot be necessary to the

making a sacrifice, except it can be proved that God cannot
accept of a sacrifice but by having some part of it burnt on
His altar; which would not only give countenance to the
false notion of the heathen, in supposing that their gods
were really fed and refreshed with the fume of flesh, but
would perfectly destroy the Sacrifice of Christ Jesus ; for no
part of the Sacrifice offered by Him was consumed by fire;
therefore it is certain, a sacrifice may be accepted by God,
though no fire be used in offering it; and that a sacrifice
may be a means of procuring covenant and communion with
God, without being burnt on the altar.

TheEucha- And it is evident that all these ends are served by the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; and,

1. All the particular ends of sacrifice. For first, and
secondly, all prayers and praises for special mercies are most
properly offered to God in and by the Eucharist; because the
Eucharist is the peculiar worship of the Christian Church, as
will appear in the next chapter; and the primitive Christians
practised it as such, and therefore used it in order to pro
cure any singular blessing from God; as for instance, when
a Bishop or Priest was ordained, or when any of them or of
the faithful died or were married, the Eucharist was offered
to God in hopes of obtaining proper blessings and mercies
on the persons concerned. The Eucharist was most pro
bably that " ministry," in which the Prophets at Antioch were
engaged, when athe Spirit said unto them, Separate Me
Paul and Barnabas/' and when they laid their hands on
these two eminent Ministers of Christ. St. Paul exhorts,
" that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and eucharists,
should be made for kings, and all that were in authority."
It can scarce be thought reasonable, that St. Paul should
charge Christians to give thanks for such prodigies of vice
and tyranny as then swayed the Roman empire ; much less,
that thanks should be given for all men without distinction,
for the enemies and persecutors of Christianity ; but it was
indeed proper to offer the Eucharist, the Christian Sacrifice,
even for their most bitter enemies, that God might convert
them or bring them to a better mind; that so Christians

Acts xiii.
1,2.

1 Tim. ii.
1,2.

ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 67

" might lead quiet and peaceable lives." The very name SECT.
( Eucharist' implies it to be a Sacrifice of thanks for all real —

blessings. It is also, by virtue of the personal Sacrifice of
Christ, a means of averting all evil. And as to the third
particular end, viz., forgiveness of sin, our Saviour hath
taught us that this is one special end of the Eucharist,
when He calls the consecrated Bread and Wine, " My Body
given" [to God], and "My Blood shed for the remission of
sins."

3. The general ends of sacrifice are all obtained by the
Eucharist. For, first, all gifts brought to God's Altar are an
acknowledgment of His dominion ; and Christ expects that
His disciples should bring gifts to the Altar, and those, too,
material gifts, such as may be left behind them while they
go to be reconciled to their brethren. And Ireneeus* justly
explains this as a gift given to our Great King, and by
which we honour Him. And secondly, and thirdly, that the
Christian Eucharist is a service by which we render God
propitious to us, and by which we do covenant and commu
nicate with Him, is what I suppose will be denied by none.

And the excellency of the Christian Sacrifice, above and Though it
beyond all others, does appear from this consideration, that Sacrifice!16
though it be but one, and always offered in the same man
ner, yet it does at once serve all the ends of all the Levitical
sacrifices ; and we are actually to propose all these ends to
ourselves, whenever we offer it. But there is one end in offer
ing of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which it differs from
the generality of the ancient sacrifices. What this is, I am
to shew in the next section.

CHAP. I. SECT. III.

One, and that the principal, end in offering the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist is, to make a commemoration and representation of
a greater Sacrifice ; in this it differs from the generality of
the ancient sacrifices.

THE first and principal design, which our Saviour proposed First end of
to Himself in the institution of the Eucharist was, that it r\st is>Ua *d

commemo-
c, e, f, pp. 4, 5, Ap. ration.

F 2

68 ONE END PECULIAR TO THE

CHAP, might be a standing, perpetual memorial of the Sacrifice
- offered by Him for the sins of the world. He clearly teaches
us this truth in those words, " Do/' or offer, " this in remem
brance of Me." Christ's offering Himself a Sacrifice for the
sins of men and resigning Himself up to death for their sake
was certainly, in itself considered, the most astonishing and
remarkable fact that was ever yet accomplished from the
foundation of the world. If we search all the records of
time past and examine all history that was ever written, we
shall find nothing to be compared to it. That He, Who is
the Son of God, and Very God, should not only become
Man, and take on Him the form of a servant, but also die
the death of a common slave and malefactor, has something
in it that does exceedingly surprise and raise the admiration
of all that consider and believe it ; and there is nothing re
lated by any faithful writer, that can in any measure be
equalled to it. Our imaginations can scarce reach any thing
that can surpass it. Christ did and suffered this, purely for
our good and benefit. He did by this means purchase for
us the most inestimable blessings ; I mean, pardon of our
sins upon our repentance and proper application made to
God to this purpose, and grace and salvation to all that
come to God by Him. These are infinitely the greatest
blessings that men are capable of receiving ; and these were
procured chiefly by the Sacrifice offered by Christ in His
own Person. On both accounts this Sacrifice of Christ de
serves to be remembered by us above and beyond all things
that ever yet came to pass; not only as it is in itself the
greatest and most worthy of our commemoration, but as it
was intended wholly for our advantage, and as the advan
tage proceeding from thence to us is the most valuable and
weighty of any other. Therefore it was fit and reasonable
that this Sacrifice of His should always be kept fresh in the
memory of those, for whose good it was intended. There
fore at the same time that Christ offered Himself a Sacrifice
under the symbols of Bread and Wine, and the evening
before He suffered on the Cross, He charged His Apostles
to continue the memory of what He was now doing, and of
what He was going to suffer, unto the end of the world.
And as nothing does so well deserve to be remembered ; so

SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 69

our Saviour took the best care to have it remembered in the SECT.
most serious and solemn manner, by the most pious and —
worthy body of men that ever the world produced, that is,
the Christian Church, in the most sublime ordinance of the
most excellent religion that God was ever pleased to reveal
to mankind.

It is a mistake to think, that we are only to call this to AH the vir-
remembrance in our own minds or before men. We wrejtowftoin
certainly to shew forth Christ's death in the Sacrament, not this-
only to one another, but to God. Not that we are to suspect
that God would forget it, if we did not refresh His memory;
but because, by commemorating the Sacrifice once offered by
Christ, we use the means appointed by Him for obtaining the
effects of His death. We offer the Sacramental Body and
Blood of Christ to God, not only as a Sacrifice of praise for
the merits of our Saviour's Passion, but in order to render all
our prayers and petitions more acceptable at the throne of
grace, especially our prayers for the pardon of our sins, for
grace to amend our lives, and thereby to obtain a happy
resurrection to eternal life. So that, indeed, the Sacrifice of
the Eucharist, as it is a commemoration of Christ's offering
Himself in person, does answer all the ends of the ancient
sacrifices ; forasmuch as the merits of His death are the most
prevailing motive we can use with God, to render all our
services acceptable to Him, to procure forgiveness of our
sins and the continuance of all spiritual favours, especially
those of our covenanting and communicating with God. And
as the offering of any creatures to God is an acknowledg
ment of God's dominion and other attributes; so the pre
senting to Him the Sacramental Bread and Wine, as the
figures of Christ's Body and Blood, is a very proper way and
a method of Christ's own choosing, whereby to own and
recognize God as the first Author and Founder of our Be-
demption as well as all other blessings we enjoy.

It cannot be said of the generality of the sacrifices of the Ancient
ancients, that they were commemorations or representations J^"^8
of some other more ancient and excellent sacrifices ; however, their value
they were not so in the intentions of those who offered them, of Christ.
I doubt not but all the acceptable sacrifices offered by the
Patriarchs and Israelites before and under the Law were, in

70 ONE END PECULIAR TO THE

CHAP. God's secret intention, types and figures of the Great Sacri-

— fice of Christ ; but it does not appear that the generality of

those who offered them were sensible of this. The chief

design they had in sacrificing to God was, to procure or

render thanks for some mercy or favour; that they saw

Christ in the bullocks and lambs which they killed in honour

to God, we have no evidence ; nor did God ever inform them

that the beasts, slain every day in the tabernacle or temple,

were types of Christ or of any other sacrifice past or to come.

Passover, There was indeed one very singular providence, and the

sacrifice of greatest, I think, that ever happened, except our redemption

^7 Christ Jesus ; and that was the deliverance of the Israel-
theJews. ites from their bondage in Egypt, with the miracles which
went before and followed it. This providence God was pleased
to have yearly commemorated by slaying a lamb for every
family, and offering it as a sacrifice to God, and consuming
it in a religious feast. And this was indeed a commemorative
sacrifice, both in the design of God, and of the Israelites by
whom it was offered. Nay, and it seems that the lambs slain
every year in after-ages were representations of the lambs
slain at first, the evening before they went out of the land of
Egypt ; for God commands the people, when they were in
Exod. xiii. future ages asked by their children, "What mean you by
this service?" to answer, "It is the Lord's Passover, Who
passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt."
By which it appears, that all the lambs that were sacrificed
on this festival, though many hundred years after the first
institution, were commemorations and representations of the
sacrifice of the Passover, which was first offered in Egypt;
and it does not appear, that they had any other sacrifice of
this nature.

Many Gen- The Gentiles had many commemorative sacrifices, as many

ficesScom- as were offered by the Greeks and Romans every year as

tioM°but monunients of gratitude for signal benefits and deliverances.

not repre- But I have not as yet met with any of these commemorative

sacrifices, in which that which was offered every year was in

tended to represent the first original sacrifice offered, when

the festival was new founded ; such as were the yearly lambs

at the Passover, in relation to the lambs offered in Egypt.

Yet it cannot be denied, that the Gentiles had representa-

SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 71

tive sacrifices. We are assured, that the Egyptians y, Greeks2, SECT,
if not Romans a, used to make images, in paste or dough, of

"V x 4.1,

such creatures as they would have sacrificed, if they could had a sort
have procured them. Pythagorasb, and his scholar Empe-
docles, offered bullocks made of paste or other ingredients, crifices
because they were enemies to the practice of slaying animals.

In fine, it is not to be proved, I believe, by any monuments The an-
of the Jews or other people now remaining, that either of
them had any notion of a sacrifice, whose virtue depended

upon the merits of some more excellent sacrifice formerly merits pro-
offered ; though it is evident, that the Jews had one sacrifice another.
of commemoration, and that their sacrifice of commemo
ration was a representation of that first offered in the land of
Egypt. And though I do not observe any sacrifices of the Gen
tiles, which were both commemorative and representative ;
yet they had some commemorative, others representative,
though not of another thing actually before sacrificed.

It is certain, Bread and Wine, by virtue of the Divine in- Bloody
stitution, may be as effectual to procure the Divine favour as can no more
the blood of the most valuable animal ; for no rational man j^J ^ne~
will say, that the life of a beast is, in itself considered, an *eir own
equivalent for the life of a man, much less for his soul ; and unbloody
bread and wine, by virtue of God's appointment, may be an °r
atonement for sin. We are sure, under the Law, that, if he
who had sinned was not able to bring a lamb or two turtle
doves or pigeons, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour was
sufficient for a sin-offering; and with this the priest was "to Lev. v. 11
make an atonement for him, as touching his sin that he hath ~13'
sinned." And Pliny c, the learned heathen, tells us, " The gods

y Of Se TreV^res avruv [AiyvTrriow] JEi\. iv.

VTT" dor0ei/eirjs jSt'ou vranivas TrAcurcwTes b See Sect. I. of this chapter.

vs, Kal oTTT-fi<rai'T€s ravras, dvovffi. Athenaeus has the following words

— [Herodot. Euterpe, c. 47.] concerning Empedocles ; 'E/iTreSoKAfJs

* See Suidas in the word fiovs, and 8s 6 'AKpayavr'ivos 'linrois 'OAu/iTno vi-

Dr. Potter's Greek Antiq.,vol. ii. pp. /djcras, Uv6ayopiKbs &v, Kal

214. 219. O7re;c<fyiei/os, e'/c afj.vpisT)s Kal

" Servius's note upon the words Kal TU>V •jroAureAeo'TaTajj/ apoc/

Virgine caesa, y£neid. ii. ver. 116, is avairXdaas, SieVet/xe TO?S et's rrjv iravn-

as follows; Non vere, sed ut videbatur. yvptv a.iravTr\(ra(n.v. — [Lib. i. p. 3. Ed.

Et sciendum in sacris simulata pro Casaubon. Lugd. 1612.]

verisaccipi ; unde, quum deanimalibus, c Nee minus propitii (Dii) erant

quae difficile inveniuntur, est sacrifi- rnola salsa supplicantibus ; immo vero,

candum, de pane vel cera fiunt, et pro ut palam est, placatiores. — Nat. Hist.,

veris accipiuntur. See him also on the lib. xii. c. 18.
words — latices simulates fontis Averni..

72 ONE END PECULIAR TO THE

CHAP, were as well pleased, nay, better, with those that made their

- supplications with a seasoned cake," than if they had offered

more costly sacrifices. If God had pleased to have made mere

natural bread in all times and places an expiation for sin,

there is no reason to doubt but it would have been effectual

to this purpose. He that in one case appointed an offering

of meal as a sacrifice for sin, might have appointed it in all

other cases; and therefore it can be resolved into nothing

Heb.ix. 22. but the will and pleasure of God, that " almost all things were

by the Law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood

was no remission." The Apostle does not suppose that blood

was in itself necessary or sufficient to do this ; and if the

blood of animals could in its own virtue atone for the sins of

men, I suppose any other sacrifice had been needless, even

that of Christ Jesus Himself. All that St. Paul says is, that

blood purged all things ' by the Law ;' and therefore not by

its own worth or nature, but by God's appointment.

All accept- I am entirely in the sentiment of all Divines, both ancient

fices receive and modern, Protestants and Papists, who agree in this, to the

from1 that116 ^est °^ my observation, that all the sacrifices before and under

of Christ, the Law received the atoning virtue they had, from the will of

God Who instituted and accepted them, not in regard to their

own value or virtue, but in consideration of the Great and

most meritorious Sacrifice, which was to be offered by Christ

in the fulness of time ; and that therefore these sacrifices

were types of Christ in the purpose and intention of God,

though not revealed to all that offered these sacrifices : and

that therefore all acceptable sacrifices agree in this, that they

are representations of the Grand one, which was offered by

Christ in His own Person.

And of all representative sacrifices, the Eucharist is cer
tainly the most excellent.

TheEucha- 1. Because the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are, or
ly di^ceraSi ought to be, known by all who use them, to be representations
it £? What of the Great Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ ; where
as the sacrifices, under the Law and before it, were not gene
rally known and discerned by those who offered them, to be
types of Christ.

And was 2. The first and main design of the Eucharist is, to be a
principally remembrance of the personal Sacrifice of Christ ; whereas

SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 73

the beasts offered under the Law were first and chiefly in- SECT.
tended by God to be services performed to Him by His
people, whereby to express their wants and desires, and
procure a supply and relief of them ; and they were types
of Christ only by a second and more remote intention of
Almighty God.

3. The Eucharist is the only Sacrifice, in which that of in which
Christ is represented since it was offered, and to them who

live under the Gospel, and is therefore clearly discerned by
those who offer it. If the Jews had been informed, that their offered,
sacrifices represented a more excellent one to come ; yet their
apprehension of its signification and efficacy must have been
more obscure than ours now is, because their notions of the
Messias Himself were but imperfect in comparison of that
plain view of Him, which the Gospel gives us.

4. This is the only representation of Christ's Body and And which
Blood, which is That Body and Blood in power and effect ; for 1^ ofSacri
the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are such types, as that in
he who eats and drinks them unworthily is " guilty of the

Body and Blood of Christ ;" which can be said of none of the
other ancient sacrifices. They are not such poor and sorry
figures as those which the Gentiles offered to their gods,
which represented an animal only in their outward form and
shape. They are the Body and Blood of Christ in inward
life and spirit, as I have elsewhere d shewed at large.

CHAP. I. SECT. IV.

Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the
sacrifices of the ancients, as to the substance therein offered.

THE gross substance of our Sacrifice is known to be Bread Bread, or
and Wine. Some can hardly be persuaded, that any thing 1™^™°
deserves the name of a sacrifice, but some creature that hath sacrifice-
life and blood ; whereas the very first sacrifice mentioned in
Scripture was of the fruit of the ground, and therefore con- Gen. iv. 3.
sisted probably of corn, grapes, or such like materials. St.
Paul6 expressly calls this a sacrifice; and the ancient Greek

d See Part I. pp. 151 — 159, and e Compare Acts vii. 42 with Amos
169 — 204. v. 25.

74 ANY MATTER, NOT SORDID,

Translators, whose phrases and expressions the writers of the
- New Testament do most commonly follow, do, not only in
the fourth chapter of Genesis but almost perpetually, give to
an offering made of such fruits or of meal, the name arid
title of a Sacrifice ; nay, St. Stephen or St. Luke or both
do give the name of Sacrifices to meal-offerings, and at the
same time call the bloody oblations ' slain beasts/ Christ
Jesus Himself, according to St. Markf, calls the meal-offering
a sacrifice ; for those words of His, " Every sacrifice shall be
salted with salt," are allowed by all learned men to mean no
more nor no less than what was said by Moses, " Every obla
tion of the meat-offering shall be seasoned with salt ;" as the
Heb. xi.4; LXX express it. Both Moses and St. Paul express the offer
ing made by Cain, by the same word that they do the offer
ing of Abel, and they were both equally Sacrifices, though
not equally acceptable. The chief fault of Cain's sacrifice
was, not that it consisted of fruit, but that it was not sea
soned with faith ; and the great commendation of Abel's
sacrifice was, not that it consisted of living creatures, but
that it abounded in that quality which Cain's wanted?. The
learned Grotius asserts that Abel's sacrifice was an unbloody
one. Our translation indeed saysh, " Abel brought of the
firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof;" but by 'the first
lings' we may understand, not the first-born or best lambs,
but the first-fruits or products of it, that is, the wool and
milk. And the same Hebrew word, diversely pointed, signi
fies both e fat' and ' milk.' And Josephus as well as Grotius
took it for ' milk' in this place. And both wool and milk1 were

f Compare Levit. ii. 13 with Mark ' That wool was offered in sacrifice

ix. 49. we have the following authorities, viz.,

* Josephus indeed was of opinion, Pausanias, in Arcadicis, c. 42. [vol. iii.

that "the fruits of the earth," being p. 436.] TOUTTJS fiaAio-ra eyw rrjs ATJ-

forced from it by the covetous mind of ju^rpos eVe/ca es &iya\ia.v oK/n/c^yUTji/, Kal

Cain, for this reason were unacceptable efiuo-a rfj 0e£, Ka6d Kal of f-rri^copioi vo-

to God ; but this fancy of his casts a p.i£ovcriv, ovSev, TO, Se airb T&V Sevdpoov

reproach upon husbandry, which has r&v fifjLfpwv, rd re ciAAa, Kal a^uTreAou

always been esteemed the most useful KapTrbv, Kal {MtXiffauv re Kypia, KOI epiccv

and innocent employ. ra ^ es epyaaiav TTCO yKovra, clAAo eri

h The Hebrew *^1 signifies ' first- avdirXfa rov olffinrov. & ndeaaiv eVl r'bv

fruit,' as well as ' first-born,' Exod. fia/j.bv cpKodo/Ji.vip.€Voi> irpb rov (rirrjAaiov'

xxiii. 16; Levit. ii. 14; Mich. vii. 1. 0eVres 5e Karaxtova-iv avrwv eAcctoj/.

n?il signifies 'milk' (as well as 'fat'), ravra iSiurais re avtipdcri Kal ava irav

and Josephus so understood it. Antiq., eros T$ Koivf KaQfarrjKei' es T^V 9valai<'

lib. i. It is true, as it now stands pointed, Uptm 8e crfy'iffiv twriv T] Spuxra, ffvv 8e

it signifies ' fat ;' but Grotius well knew avTf} Kal T&V ifpoQvr&v KaXovp.evwv 6

that the points are but of yesterday. vcwraros.

MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 75

frequently offered by the ancients. The Nomadesk offered SECT,

the tip of a sheep's ear, and Herodotus calls this a sacrifice. -

I dare not depend on Grotius's arguings, especially because

"the blood of Abel," in the Epistle to the Hebrews, seems Heb.xii.24.

to signify the sacrifice offered by him ; and if so, then his

sacrifice must have consisted of living creatures; but my

reader perhaps may be of another sentiment.

Some learned men suppose, that Noah first offered cakes Of Noah'3
in sacrifice, and was from thence by the heathen called cakes?8
Ogyges1. What is more certain is, that "Melchisedec™ brought
forth bread and wine," and did this, as " priest of the .most
High God," in order to his blessing Abraham. And it is
certain, that sacrifice did usually go before solemn benedic
tions.

He, who looks into the Levitical Law, may at first sight More un-
imagine, that the main of the Jewish sacrifices were of the thanJoody,
bloody sort, because much more is said of the offering beasts
than of the meal-offerings ; but the reason why so many Jews-
words are used in relation to the bloody sacrifices is, because
there were many more rites and circumstances necessary to
be observed in them than in the other, which were a more
simple and plain sort of sacrifice ; yet we have just reason to
believe, that there were many more meal-offerings than
beasts brought to the Jewish altar. For in the first place,
no bullock", sheep, or goat (except for sin or trespass), was
to be presented to God without a meal-offering and drink-
offering ; and, in case of sin or trespass, all that were not

Sophocles, in his Uo\vei8os now not Expectare sat est : custos es pauperis

extant ; but the following words are pre- horti.

served by Porphyry in his second book Horat. Tellurem porco, Silvanum lacte

De Abstinentia, p. [65.] piabant. [Lib. ii. Ep. i. v. 143.]

* yap 6'ibs /j.a\\bs, ^v Si' a^ire- k Herodot. Melpomene, c. 188. ®v~

<riou 8e roini i/oywacrt elcrlv a7Se' eVeai/

T€ Kal pa£ fv rfQ-r](ravpi(rp.4vn. TOV urbs airdp^vrai TOV Kryvfos, pnrre-

K. T. \. overt virep rbv SdfAov.

Of the offering milk, Virgil gives And Virgil makes Cory don offer a

sufficient proof, viz., Eclog. v., where pair of hart's-horns.

Menalcas the shepherd says, Saetosi caput hoc apri tibi, Delia,

Ecce duas tibi, Daphni, duas, altaria parvus

Phcebo ; Et ramosa Micon vivacis cornua

Pocula bina novo spumantia lacte cervi. — Eclog. vii.

quotannis » From the Hebrew Jiy, see Dr.

Craterasque duos statuam tibi pin- Spencer, De Leg. Heb. p. 659.

guis olivi. m Gen xiv> 18 See Unbloody Sacri-

And Eclog. vii. Thyrsis says, fice, Part I. p. [123-134.]

Sinum lactis, et haec tibi liba, Priape, n Numb, xv., and see Ainsworth's

quotannis Notes.

76 ANY MATTER, NOT SORDID,

CHAP, able to bring a beast or turtle-dove are allowed to bring an
•£-ev ^ 2 offering of fine flour ; and one may safely affirm, that more
sacrifices of flour must have been offered for sin than of
living creatures, because the poor are the greatest part of all
nations. Further, it deserves our consideration, that all the
sacrifices mentioned in the three first chapters of Leviticus
were either freewill offerings for blessings desired, or vows
for blessings already received. The first chapter treats of
burnt-offerings, the second of the mincha or meal-offering,
the third of the peace-offerings. It is plain to any one that
reads the three chapters with attention, that it was left to
the discretion of the offerer, whether his sacrifice should be
a beast, a bird, or a meal-offering; and if it were a beast,
whether he would have it offered as a burnt-offering, or a
peace-offering, (only if one animal were wholly burnt, another
must be added as a peace-offering for the feast,) but he
might save the charge of both by a meal-offering. And I
leave it to my reader to judge, whether in most cases this
latter course was not taken ; but if he chose to offer an
animal, yet still the meal-offering must be added to it, as has
before been shewed; and though the meal-offering were a
proper sacrifice without the beast, and might be offered by
itself alone, yet the bullock, sheep, or goat, could not be
offered in sacrifice without the mincha or meal-offering. So
that, upon the whole, I think it evident that there were more
minchas offered than beasts; and in all cases the mincha
might be offered without a beast, but the beast could
not be offered without the mincha or meal-offering, except
it were for sin and trespass. Arid though our translators
call the beast or bird only, ' a sacrifice/ yet the ancient Greek
Translators, whom our Saviour and His Apostles in this
respect follow °, did not so.

And Gen- After the practice of burning beasts in sacrifice prevailed
among the Greeks and Latins, yet no beast was offered
without the salted cakep; and all bloody sacrifices were
looked upon as innovations and as an unnatural practice by
some of the acutest of them. Pythagoras was for his " un
bloody sacrifice." Plutarch speaks of king Numa and his

0 Compare Lev. ii. 13 with Mark Amos v. 25 with Acts vii. 42.
ix. 49, Gen. iv. 4 with Heb. xi. 4, and P See Sect. II. of this chapter.

MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 77

old Romans as his disciples in this particular, and approves SECT.
and applauds them on this account. Some, to bring the — —

very notion of a sacrifice into contempt, have asserted that it
was the invention of the ancient ignorant part of mankind ;
but one would think that a way of worshipping God, which
was chosen by so eminent a philosopher, might challenge
some regard among those who attribute so much to, reason
and philosophy. It is evident from a citation before in the
margin, taken from Pausanias, that this great man favoured
the same opinion ; and at another place n, speaking of Cecrops
the first king of Athens, he observes, that he sacrificed
nothing that had life, but only a certain sort of cakes that
were still known at Athens ; whereas on the contrary, Lycaon
offered an infant to Jupiter. Porphyry1" mentions a law of
Triptolemus, charging the Athenians to honour the gods
with fruits, and not to slay animals. Arid sacrifices con
sisting of all sorts of fruit are mentioned by Sophocles3
and others.

Both Jews and Gentiles had also their drink-offerings or Drink-offer-
libations with most of their sacrifices. The drink-offerings bjfjews
of the Jews are said by most to have consisted of mere wine Jgd <and
or the pure juice of the grape. I am not much concerned probably of
to inquire into the truth of this ; but there seems to be no liquors.
other reason for believing it, but that no mention is made in
the Law of any other liquor to be mingled with the wine on
this occasion ; and I only crave leave to say, that I think this
is not a sufficient ground to prove, that no water was put
into it; for* wine mixed with water is still called wine by
the ancients, and the warm parts of the world, such as Judasa,
produce such strong wines that no sober men used to drink
them without a dash of water. However, it is certain, the
Gentiles in their drink-offerings often mingled oil or honey

'O fiff yap (Ke/fpcoij/) — 6ir6(ra e^ei vofj.oO€T?)(rai. Kal ru>v v6/u.a}v aurov rpsls

TOVTWV jLiev Ti^iaxrev ovStv 6v(rai, en EevowpctTTjs 6 <pi\6(ro<pos Ae'yet Sia-

Se eiri^wpia eVl rov PU/J.OV fJLeveiv 'EAeu<rZVi rousSe' Toi/els TIU.O.V

, a TTf\dvovs Ka\ova"iv eVi Kal &eovs Kapirois cryaAAeu/. Zwa yu^ (ri

ds r)/j.cis'A0T]vaioi. AvKoicav 5e eVi rt>v veaQai. — De Abst., lib. iv. p. [178.]
$u[jibv TOV AvKaiou Aibs Ppe<pos HvfyKev * Sophocles' irdyicapTra 6v/j.aTa are

avdpto-rrov, Kal eOucre rb Ppecpos. You mentioned in Electra, ver. 635.
have the description of these cakes in 4 Plut. [Conjugialia Praecepta, torn.

the Scholiast on Euripides in Helena, ii. p. 140. Ed. Paris. 1624.] Tb Kpapa.,

p. 296 of Barnes's edition. [Cantab. Kairot irAeiovos /ueTe'xoy vSaros, divov

1694.] Ka\ov/j.fv.
T <£arrt Se Kal T

78

CHAP, with their wine or water". Bishop Potter x observes from

Eustathius, that the Greeks never mixed wine and water

together in their libations. Doctor Spencer y asserts the
contrary; and ^Eschylus2 mentions water and many other
ingredients in their drink-offerings, but then these were in
tended for the souls of deceased heroes. If the Jews did
commonly offer pure wine, yet Doctor Outrama cites R.
Levi Ben Gerson for saying, that at the feast of tabernacles
they offered water to God, in order to procure rain from God
for the approaching seed-time. And Mr. Ains worth b, from
Maimonides and other Rabbies, informs us, that it was the
practice of the Jews on the last day of the feast of Taber
nacles to draw water out of the pool of Siloam, and to carry
it with great triumph into the temple, and to pour it out at
the altar, together with the drink-offering of the day ; and
several learned men suppose that our Saviour alludes to
this custom, when on the last great day of this feast He
says, " He that believeth on Me, out of his belly shall flow
streams of living water." Upon the whole, it does not seem
contrary to the notions either of the Jews or heathen, to
mingle water with wine in their sacrifices.

The an- Enough has been said to shew that things without life or
thoughthey soul may be true sacrifices, if we may rely upon them who
th?sub-m best understood the notions, languages, and practice of the

offered* vet. ancients. They who read the Bible without prejudice may

agreed 1
they were

,yet

agreed that from thence learn, that a meal-offering was a sacrifice, even
ail sacri- according to the language of Scripture and the sentiments
of the heathen writers ; that, even according to the Levitical
Law, an offering of flour was a sacrifice for the expiation of
sin ; and I persuade myself, that no rational man would

0 Ta jiiez/ aoxeua TU>V lepuv j/rjcJxiAia T/)s T' avOefjLOvpyov OTaypa

Trapa 7roAAo?s i\v' vf]<\>a,Kia. 8' earlv TO

ra 8e juera ravra p.f- Kiftaffiv uSoTjAcus irapOevov
Ai(T7rov8a — eTr' e\ai6o"rroi'5a' reAos 8' /xera,

eTrt iraffiv, ra Sarepa yfyov6ra olv6- rio-rov iraXaias ciyUTreAou yavos roSe,

a-7roj/8a. — De Abst., lib. ii. p. [66.] Kavdrjs eXaias Kapirbs euwSrjs irapcL,

x Greek Antiquities, vol. i. p. 212. *Av8r) re TrAewra - Pers. ver.

y De Legib. Heb., p. 311. He there 565, &c.

cites the response of an oracle (without Homer. Odys. A. ver. 26.

mentioning his author), which seems to - X°^v X*4w T«O'»/ vetcvecro'ii'

prove this, viz., Olvov, KOL\ yd\a £aAAe, Tlpura /u.e\iKp-f)T(p, juereTretTO Se ^8ei'
Kttl vSaros &y\aov e?8os. otvq.

Trpevfj.fi/e7s %oas Tb rpirov olff

Boos T' a<£' ayvr/s Af VKOV GVTTOTOV a De Sacrifices, p. 225.

yd\a, b See Ainsworth on Levit. xxiii. 40.

MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 79

argue that bread could not be a sacrifice, though the Levitical SECT.
Law had allowed no such sacrifice to be offered to the True -
God. The Holy Scripture everywhere gives this name
'sacrifice' to the worship paid by the heathen to their idols.
It would be endless to recount the places, where the Prophets
charge the people of Israel with sacrificing to false gods, on
high hills and under green trees and in the high places ;
and, in the New Testament, what was " sacrificed to idolsc" is
forbidden by the Apostles to be eaten by any Christian ; by
forbidding what had thus been offered to be eaten, because
it had been sacrificed, they unavoidably allow those sacrifices
to be real sacrifices, though offered to false gods. And
indeed this was the fault of the heathen, that they paid an
honour to idols, which was due to none but the One God : if
it had not been sacrifice, the honour paid to them had not
been that Divine honour, which God claimed as His peculiar
property. On the other side, the most furious heathen
idolaters never denied the offerings made by the Jews to
be true sacrifices, though they differed very much from their
own ; not only in this, that they were offered to the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Whom they did not worship,
but as to the substance of the thing that was offered. Pharaoh Exod. viii.

Q rt/» Of)

did over and again own that the service to be paid by the
Israelites was ' sacrifice/ though Moses had informed him
that they were to sacrifice animals, which the Egyptians wor
shipped, and to which therefore Pharaoh himself probably
paid a Divine honour. The Jews abhorred the swine above
any other animal ; they not only forbore to sacrifice, but to
eat or touch it ; and yet it does not appear that they ever
denied it to be a sacrifice, when offered on the heathen altars,
as it was very frequently. Honey was expressly forbidden, Lev. ii. n.
by their Law, to be burnt on the altar of the True God ; on
the other sided, the heathen looked on it as a most proper
ingredient of sacrifice, ase an entertainment most fit for their

c Ei5wA($0yTa, Acts xv. 20. 29. cited him), and the oblation of fruits

d Porphyry, De Abstinentia, lib. ii. and cakes and oil, he crowns all with

ubi supra, says of Sophocles, that 5ia- a honey-comb in these words,

ypaffxav TTJI/ 0eo(/>iA5j Qvaiav, " when he /ecu rb iroiKiKurarov

would describe a sacrifice luscious to Eou0f)s fj.f\ia"a"ns KfjooirXacrrbv up-

the gods," he does it thus; and after yavov. [p. 65.]

the mention of tha fleece of wool, and e ®fwi> r)8ftav

grapes, and raisins (for which 1 before

80 ANY MATTER, NOT SORDID,

CHAP. gods. The heathen sacrificed several other animals, which

God Almighty never thought worthy to be offered on His

altar, as the horse f, the dog, the cock or hen, and several
sorts of fish ; but the Jews did never from hence conclude,
that these were not real sacrifices. Croesus king of Lydia,
who was excellently well versed in the religion of the age
and country in which he lived, and that had a correspondence
with Solon and Pittacus, if not with Bias, who were men
most eminent for their wisdom in those ancient times, offered
a most valuable and singular sacrifice ; he made a vast pile
of golden and silver beds, golden vials, and costly purple
garments ; he set the pile on fire, and melted down the solid
metals, and burned the other materials to ashes. It must be
confessed, that the substance of which this sacrifice consisted
was unusual and extraordinary; yet Herodotus g, who gives
us this relation, not only gives it the title of 'a sacrifice/ but
tells us to what religious purposes the ingots which pro
ceeded from this conflagration were applied, and that he
obliged all his subjects to follow his example in offering
whatever they had of this sort, as a sacrifice to the god
which they worshipped. The Philistines, when they found
that God's judgments were upon them on account of their
detaining the ark in their custody, are directed to offer
golden emerods and golden mice, that is, massy gold formed
into the shape of those tumours which the emerods had
caused, and of those little animals, with which they had
been infested; and to these oblations they give that very
name, which in the Law of Moses is ascribed to a she-lamb

i Sam. vi. or she-goat offered at God's altar for the expiation of guilt,
I mean, they call it a trespass-offering ; and the holy penman
does not at all stick to give it the same title. It was not
indeed a Jewish sacrifice nor offered according to their rites,
and it consisted of a substance which God had never com
manded to be offered at the altar by the revelation made to
Moses ; but the writer of the books of Samuel had not his
mind cramped with the narrow notions of the men of this age,
who can think nothing a sacrifice but what was prescribed by
the Law of Moses. St. Peter tells us, that these " holy men

f See Dr. Potter's Greek Antiq., vol. i. p. 216, 217.
f Herodot,, lib. i. c. 50. 27. 30.

MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 81

wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" and there- SECT.
fore the Holy Ghost teaches us, that whatever is offered by -
men for the expiation of guilt, according to the best light
and knowledge which Providence affords them, may be justly
styled a sin-offering, though it be very different in substance
as well as circumstance from the sacrifices required of the
Jews. Indeed, I am mistaken, if this be not the first age in They, who
which men have denied the title of a sacrifice to any thing
else but what has blood and life. I conceive all the °ld

learned world allowed those to be sacrifices, which were ancients,
offered as such in any nation, how disagreeable soever they Christ. n
were to those which were used by themselves. Porphyry,
indeed, being a violent enemy to the killing and eating of
animals, can scarce afford the name of " sacrifice" to bullocks,
sheep, and goats, slain in honour to the Divine Majesty. He
is the only instance that I have met with of a man of learn
ing, before our own age, who does not freely allow the name
of "sacrifice" to any creature, whether with life or without life,
solemnly offered at an altar. Some of our age have run into
the contrary extreme, and would have a sacrifice of bread and
wine to be thought none at all ; and by this means they
must deny the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Pythagoreans
and some of the most acute Gentile writers, to be competent
judges of the meaning of the word " sacrifice ;" for, certainly,
they who practised " unbloody sacrifices" thought them to be
real ones ; they are such sacrifices as were offered even in
the life-time of Adam. The use I would make of this is, to
convince my reader that an offering of bread and wine may
be as true a sacrifice as a bullock or goat ; for if the fruits of
the earth, cakes or honey-combs, gold and silver, wool and
milk, and, in a word, all the valuable and useful products of
nature have ever been esteemed sacrifices, when offered ac
cording to the received rules and laws of religion, as well as
cattle, fowls, and fish ; then no reason can be conceived, why
Bread and Wine, offered on the Christian Altar, should be
looked upon as incapable of being a true Sacrifice, and that
they who assert the contrary do oppose the universal judg
ment both of Jews and Gentiles, of the holy penmen of
Scripture, and of our blessed Saviour.

As the bloody sacrifices of the Law were types of Christ,

JOHNSON. Q

82 ANY MATTER, NOT SORDID,

CHAP, so the meal-offering was a type of the Eucharist ; and as such
it is mentioned by the Prophet Malachi, who foretells, that

ing, a type f ' from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of
diarist. u" the same, God's Name shall be great among the Gentiles, and
Mai. i. 11. in every place incense shall be offered unto His Name, and a
pure offering." The last word of this text is in the Hebrew
the same, which is every where used to signify " an offering
of meal," or " flour ;" and it is certain that he could not mean
the Levitical meal-offering, for that was never intended to be
offered from " the rising of the sun to the going down of the
same." This is a character which belongs only to the Chris
tian Eucharist, which was designed by God to be offered
" every where," by which means God's Name was to be great
among the Gentiles ; for the main body of the Christian
Church, from the time of the Apostles to this very day, were
and are Gentiles, such as are not of the stock of Abraham,
according to the flesh. Nor was this prophecy of the meal-
offering to be made among the Gentiles to the True God
ever fulfilled otherwise than by God's causing the Christian
Eucharist to be celebrated wherever the Gospel has pre
vailed.

Difference The reader is mistaken, if he thinks I assert that the meal-
meai-ofter- offering of the Jews was the same sacrifice in substance with
Eucharist tf16 Bread and Wine in the Communion. It was an offering
that was the most like it of any other, and therefore was the
most apt type in which the Prophet could represent it. As
therefore incense does, in this text of Malachi, typify prayer
and praise, so does the meal-offering the Bread in the Com
munion. The Jewish meal-offering was a compound of fine
Lev. ii. 2. flour, oil, and salt ; no leaven was to be put into it, except it
vii.'iS; ' were for a thanksgiving or for the first-fruits, in which last
jTu 1? ' case ft was no^ *° consist of ground-meal or flour but of ears
Lev. ii. 2 ; of corn dried by the fire. Frankincense was always to be put
on it, save when it was a sin-offering ; then it was to be with
out either oil or frankincense. By this it appears that the
meal-offering was a very proper type of the Bread in the
Communion, not only as it was without life or blood, but as
it consisted chiefly of flour or at least parched corn -, but it
was in no other particular the same with the Eucharist ; for
I suppose no one of our Church will say that oil, salt, or

MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 83

leaven are necessary ingredients of the Sacramental Bread ; SECT.
but all of them may either be put in or left out at discretion. -
There was indeed a dispute in the middle ages of the Church
between the Greeks and Latins, whether the Eucharist ought
to be administered in leavened or unleavened bread ; but the
wisest of each contending party have long since agreed, that
this ought to be left to the custom and discretion of every
Church.

In another respect, the meal-offering of the Jews was a Meal-offer-
very agreeable type of the Christian Eucharist ; I mean, as Untife EU-
it was " a thing most holy of the sacrifices of the Lord/' ^ s^fs
which is a title never given to any thing offered at the altar, Lev. ii. 3.
excepting the meal-offering and the sacrifice for sin and
trespass. No Jew might eat any part of it, save the priests Lev. viii. 10
only, even when it was offered with a peace-offering ; though ~~
the greatest part of the carcase of the beast was to be eaten
by the persons who offered it : yet the meal-offering was the
priests' portion ; therefore it is called " the bread of God," Lev. xxi.
which was a title peculiar to that part of the sacrifice which
was burnt on the altar, or which was reserved for the eating
of the priests. It was therefore a most fit type of the Eu
charist, which is the most sacred and solemn institution
which God ever vouchsafed to men. And the greatest dig
nity of the Christian people consists in this, that they are
admitted to eat " the bread of God," to partake of that which
is " most holy," as the Jewish people never were ; and, in this
particular, all Christian men are priests in such a sense as
the Jewish laity never were, though both the Christian and Exod. xix.
Jewish people are equally honoured with the title of Priests. 9.'

There is no certain evidence, whether the drink-offerings Wine offer-
of the Jews were wholly poured out on the altar, or whether heathen

some part were reserved for the priests or even for the people ;

but this is sure, that in the Gentile sacrifices some portion of rfser7e(l for

the feast.

the wine offered to their gods was generally kept to be drunk
by the offerers. The idolatrous Israelites sat down to drink
as well as eat, and St. Paul alleges this as a proof of their
idolatry in these words, " Neither be ye idolaters, as were 1 Cor. x, 7.
some of them, as it is written, The people sat down to eat and "
drink ;" and he, in the same chapter, intimates that the same
practice still remained among the heathen of that age, and

G 2

84 ANY MATTER, NOT SORDID,

CHAP, therefore calls the wine drunk by them in the idol-temples,
— " the cup of devils," as having been offered to them ; there
fore Esther is represented by the Apocryphal writers as justi-
Esther xiv. fying herself, that she had not " drunk the wine of the drink-
offerings ;" for it should seem that king Ahasuerus's and Ha
inan's table was served with wine brought from the temples ;
or else the practice of making libations to their gods, and by
this means making all the wine they drank at their feasts an
oblation, by pouring out some part of it in honour to their
false gods, is supposed by this writer to have prevailed in the
court of this prince ; and that this was no fiction, we may
Dan. L 7. learn from the sacred book of Daniel; for this Prophet "re
quested that he might not defile himself with the portion of
the king's meat, nor with the wine which the king drank •"
for it can scarce be conceived how the king's wine could defile
Daniel, but by having been offered to idols, by which means
it became an abomination to all true Israelites. See fur
ther proof for the use of wine in sacrifice in Grotius, on
Matt. xxvi.

Wine mix- I have before in this section observed, that though many

water of old learned men believe that the Jewish drink-offerings were

charistfU~ wine unmixed with water, yet there is no certainty in this

point ; and I have proved that the Gentiles offered wine and

water together. This I observe, in order to answer a cavil

made by some, as if water with wine were incapable of being

offered in sacrifice according to the received doctrine both of

Jews and Gentiles. Now it is certain, that the primitive

Christians did offer water mingled with wine in the Eucha-

ristical Cup. Justin Martyrh, Irenseus1, Clemens Alexan-

drinusk, and Cyprian1, do expressly mention it; and though

we know there were several heretics that used water only in

the Sacrament, yet we have not heard of any, in the most

primitive times, that used wine alone either in the Church

or without it. And this practice remained universal for the

first fifteen hundred years after Christ in all Churches except-

Matt. xxvi. ing that of Armenia. It is certain, three of the Evangelists

xiv. 25*1 do intimate that the Cup offered by Christ was wine, or " the

Luke xxn. fru-j. Qf ^e vine .» anj sjnce £}ie Scripture makes no mention

h a. p. 2. Ap. k b. p. 7. Ap.

j if. p. 6. Ap. i m. pp. 13, 14. Ap.

MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 85

of water, I hope all learned charitable Christians will judge SECT.
favourably of the Church of England for using none ; and, — — —

on the other side, we of the Church of England ought by no
means to censure others who put water into the Cup, for
they have the consent of the Church Catholic of all ages
with them in this particular. Pfaffius™ shews, that the cup
of blessing among the Jews did for the most part consist of
wine mixed with water, and from thence concludes that the
primitive Church took this practice from them, as it is certain
they did several others. He might from the use of the Jews
have safely inferred, that it is most probable our Saviour
qualified the wine with water; for the wine blessed by our
Saviour for the Eucharist was what remained after the con
clusion of the Passover. It is observable, that Moses takes Exod.xxiv.
no notice of the water mingled with the blood of the cove- 5' 6<
nanting sacrifices offered at his own directions ; yet St. Paul Heb. ix. 19.
assures us that "Moses took the blood with water." No
certain conclusion can be drawn from the Evangelist's
omission, any more than from that of Moses. The mixture
of water with the wine makes the old and new covenant
more exactly to answer each other.

I have said what is sufficient to shew, that Bread and
Wine, in themselves considered, are substances or materials
very proper for a sacrifice ; and that though living creatures
were perhaps in all ages offered by some people, but especially
by the Jews and the Gentiles of the times next before and
after our blessed Saviour, yet that through all these ages bread,
wine, and all other valuable fruits of the earth, were esteemed
proper sacrifices and used as such; and that therefore we
have the unanimous consent and agreement of all the ancient
people with us, when we affirm the Bread and Wine of the
Eucharist to be fit materials for a real Sacrifice.

And Bread and Wine offered in the Eucharist are not a
Sacrifice only, but a most excellent one ; and that,

1. Because, by the use of this Sacrifice we are freed from Thesim-
the yoke and bondage of those various sacrifices of the Jewish th^ gross
Law, with the burden of those numerous ceremonies with pran

in tne H.

which they were attended. We have our minds no longer charist.
encumbered and oppressed with the study and consideration

m De Oblatione Eucharist., p. 173, &c.

86 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE

CHAP, of that multitude of materials, which the Jews were obliged

to provide for the performance of Divine worship. The

meaner people are no longer under doubts and scruples,
whether they ought to put themselves to the charge of a
beast or to carry only a meal-offering to the altar. There is
one Sacrifice only to be offered by all, and for all our needs,
wants, and joys; and in which all may contribute according
to their several abilities. The substance or natural ingredients
of our Sacrifice are not difficult to be procured or costly to be
purchased. "We are tied to no certain bulk or quantity of
bread and wine, as the Jews were in their unbloody sacri
fices. We have no occasion to distract our minds with care,
how the Bread and Wine, which we offer, be made ; it is suffi
cient that it be bread and wine, the best that we can pro
cure. In a word, the Christian Sacrifice is like the Gospel
itself, plain and simple, which does not employ either the
mind or body with so many external observances, as the
Jewish sacrifices did.

The dignity 2. But that which renders the Eucharist the most excel-
fcerioussub- lent and valuable Sacrifice that was ever offered, except the
stance. personal Sacrifice of Christ, is this ; that the Bread and Wine,
then offered, are in mystery and inward power, though not
in substance, the Body and Blood of Christ. This raises the
dignity of the Christian Sacrifice above those of the Law of
Moses, and all that were ever offered by mere men. As it is
natural bread and wine, it is the sacrifice of Melchisedec and
of the most ancient philosophers : as it is the Sacrifice of the
Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, it is the most sublime
and Divine Sacrifice that men or angels can offer.

CHAP. I. SECT. V.

Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the
sacrifices of the ancients, as to the commendable qualities of
the Sacrifice.

IN treating of the qualities of Sacrifice, I shall,

1. Shew what qualities have always been thought most
excellent in sacrifices.

ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 87

2. And in what measure these qualities belong to the SECT.
Eucharist. —

1. What qualities have always been thought most excellent
in Sacrifices ; and these are,

1. That it be the best that men have to give, if they be
left to choose what they will offer.

2. That it be what is most agreeable to the will of God, if
His will in this particular be made known to us.

1. THAT the most excellent property of Sacrifice is, that it Sacrifice
be the best we have to give, if we be left to choose what we °" fhe best6
will offer. It seems highly probable, that this was the case we have>
of Cain and Abel. God had not expressly determined what
sort of things He would have in sacrifice, or what should be
the qualities, properties, and conditions of the things which
they were to offer in the honour and worship of God ; there
fore each of them offered such things as their craft and way
of life furnished the m withal; the husbandman of the fruits
of the earth, the grazier of his cattle or of the wool and milk
of them. But it is probable, that Cain had not due regard
to this rule of giving the best he had to God, as his brother
Abel did ; for we are assured that the latter gave 'more' or a
' greater sacrifice' to God than the former. He gave a proof
of his faith in the goodness of God by offering in a more
large and plentiful manner than the other, or by choosing
what was largest in its kind, for the original Greek word
will bear either of these significations" ; but the word 'ex
cellent' is added by our Translators, and was not used by
St. Paul. Noah chose of the clean beasts and birds, that is,
such as were fit to be eaten, and therefore most valuable.
And it may be observed in general, that the sacrifices offered
by Jews and Gentiles too consisted of such things as were
most proper for food or at least for clothing, though not
without some exceptions. The reason of this is very plain,
namely, that sacrifices were used long before silver and gold
or those things which we now most value were discovered,
and before the standard of exchange, that is, money, was

n Heb. xi. 4. TrXeiova Qvalav, 'more,' or a 'more ample sacrifice.'

88 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE

CHAP, invented. And the custom of offering victuals and drink,

— — being established before other things which are now counted

more precious were in use, did still continue and was the
universal practice of all nations. And the examples of melting
down silver and gold and such-like novelties, as Croesus did,
are very rare. For what is most ancient in religion has
always been esteemed to carry a sort of authority with it.
And, in truth, there is more intrinsic value in a loaf of bread
and a flagon of wine than in all the gold and silver in the
Indies ; because the former will for some time support our
lives, the other cannot do it of itself, but only as by the
consent of men it has a value set upon it, whereby it answers,
and is the price of all things.

This was I need not allege particular texts of Scripture, or the
onhehea" sayings of ancient heathen writers, to prove, that whatever
then. was offered in sacrifice was to be the best in its kind ; that
the animal to be slain at the altar, was to be without blemish
and perfect in all its parts0. The Law of Moses indeed, in
one case, according to our translation13, allowed an animal
that had " something superfluous or lacking" to be offered
to God, but it was only as a " free-will-offering •" and the
ancient Greek Translators do so render this text, that it is
plain they only thought that such a beast might be killed by
the owner for his proper use. And this seems most agreeable
to the whole tenour of the law. The Prophet pronounceth a
Mai. i. 14. curse on him, that " having a male in his flock voweth and
sacrificeth a corrupt thing." And even Saul took care that
i Sam. xv. none but " the best of the sheep and oxen" should be sacri
ficed, to the Lord.

The care of The heathen, excepting the Spartans, who offered the most

ineth?sathen scrubbed animals, had their priests q or other officers, whose

point. peculiar care it was to view and examine the beasts that were

to be offered; and Solon made a law at Athens, that none

but select sacrifices should be brought to the altar. Virgil r

speaks of " chosen two-yearing" sheep slain in sacrifice.

0 Ainsworth, on Levit. vi. 12, ob- it, ff<pdyia airo9r)(Tfis avrd ffeavrf.
serves from Maimonides, that accord- ll MOO/J-OCTKOTTOI, and Moa"xo(T(PPa'

ing to the notions of the Rabbies the yia-ral.

very wood burnt on the altar was to be r Lectas de more bidentes. .ZEn. iv.

of the best, not worm-eaten, not the ver. 57. -^En. vi. 39 ; see Servius's

wood of old buildings pulled down. Notes there.

P Levit. xxii. 23 ; the LXX render

ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 89

And indeed it seems very clear, that by " a sacrifice of SECT,
righteousness/' in the Old Testament, (for the phrase is not -
found in the New,) is meant a large generous sacrifice with-

out any defect or imperfection. It is first used in Moses'
blessing to Zebulun and Issachar, of whom it is said, " They sacrifice.
shall call the people to the mountain, there they shall offer Xxxiii. 12.
sacrifices of righteousness ; for they shall suck of the
abundance of the seas, and the treasures hid in the sands."
The meaning of which is, that these two tribes shall be
enabled to offer costly sacrifices, and by this means to give
a good example to their neighbours in going to Zion to
perform their devotions ; because of lying near to the great
ports of Tyre and Sidon they shall grow very rich. Their
riches indeed could not make them more pious or virtuous
than their neighbours; but they were by this means qualified
to be more liberal in their sacrifices. And every body knows
that ' righteousness' often signifies ' liberality' in Holy Scrip
ture. David promises that, when God should " be pleased to Psalm li.
be gracious and favourable to Zion" in making it the settled ' l
place of worship and to " build the walls of Jerusalem/' then
" He should be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness ;"
and presently tells us, what he means by this expression,
namely, " burnt-offerings and oblations" or " burnt-offerings
and whole-burnt-offerings/' as our last Translators have it ;
by which is meant great plenty of these sacrifices. If David
had meant a sacrifice consisting of righteousness; and by
righteousness meant holy and virtuous affections and dispo
sitions ; this might as well have been understood before Zion
was the place of worship, as afterwards. At another place,
David calls upon his enemies to " offer the sacrifice of right- Psalm iv. 5.
eousness." Achitophel had asked David leave to go to 2 Sam. xv.
Hebron and pay his vows ; this was only a pretence to make
an escape from King David, and to join Absalom and his
party ; yet he did actually offer sacrifice. David had reason
to suspect, that this politician under the colour of religion was
brewing mischief; yet he advises him and his companions, if
they did sacrifice, to do it as became men of their condition,
that is, with a bountiful hand. Though if any man think
that the Royal Prophet intended by this expression to give
them an admonition, that they should season their sacrifices

90 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE

CHAP. with piety and holiness; I have no objection against this,

1 but that in the two texts before-mentioned the phrase carries

no such meaning. Malachi foretells of the Messiah, that
Mai. Ui. 3. He shall " purify the sons of Levi," the Gospel-Priests, so as
that "they shall offer sacrifice in righteousness." This too
may signify a plentiful, ample oblation ; for Irenaeus testifies
that many Christians offered all they had. But it is evident,
upon the whole, that in whatever sense you take it, yet " right
eousness" could not be the sacrifice itself, but the quality
which belonged to it or to those that offered. So by a
"sacrifice of shouting8" is not meant a sacrifice made up of
sound, but burnt- offerings and peace-offerings, over which
the trumpets were blown. But though where men were left
at liberty, they generally thought themselves obliged to
present the best they had for the use of the altar ; yet still
the next rule often took place of this ; I mean,

2. That if the will of God be known, that sacrifice is to
be preferred, which He Himself hath chosen. For I suppose
no man would ever dispute, whether God or man were the
most proper judge of what is to be offered in sacrifice, or
what properties in the creatures offered are most acceptable
to Him. For aught appears, God did never determine the
quality of the things offered by the Patriarchs before the
Law, but they were left to their own discretion ; but, under
the Law, the Israelites were in a great measure stinted and
confined in this respect. If they offered a bloody sacrifice,
it must be a bullock, sheep, goat, a turtle-dove, or young
pigeon : if it was intended for a burnt- offering, it must be
a bull, a ram, or he- goat ; if for a sin-offering for a private
person, it was either a young bullock or a lamb or kid of the
female sex; if it was a peace-offering, either bullock, sheep,
or goat, male or female. If his sacrifice was unbloody, yet
the quantity of the meal and wine was in most cases fixed
and certain, and no room left for the offerer's choice ; and it
was presumption in any man to pretend to choose better than
God had done.

The care of The Gentiles, too, were sensible, that they ought not to
tiles huhat °^er an^ otner thing than what their gods (such as they
point. were) had singled out for this purpose; if they knew or

3 Compare Psalm xxxii. 6, Numb. x. 10.

ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 91

fancied, or had by tradition been informed what creatures SECT.
were most agreeable to them. It is true their pretended —
gods were very fantastical in making their choice of sacri
fices, or, rather, they who would be thought the interpre
ters were very oddly conceited in this respect ; for some gods
must have what they loved offered to them, as Mars a bull,
Venus a dove, ^Esculapius a cock ; others what they hated,
as Bacchus a goat, because it was an enemy to the vine;
Ceres a sow, because that animal used to destroy the young
fruits of the earth ; Hecate a dog, because this brute uses to
bark at the moon ; for Hecate was no other than the moon
herself. And the notions, which they had of the excellence
of one sacrifice above another, were very uncertain and in
consistent. The generality of them thought a bullock the
best ; yet the Romans believed the sheep to be " the greatest
sacrifice," though not in bulk, yet in its fitness to be offered
to the gods. Plato, as Cicero* reports his opinion, looked
upon birds as "the richest present" to the gods; but Pytha
goras and his followers, the most ancient Greeks and Latins,
judged cakes and fruit and sober drink-offerings, that is, in
which there was no wine, most acceptable to them.

It is certain they had no light in this particular, but Their un-
from their own conjectures or fond traditions. But that they
always acted on this principle, that the gods themselves were
the most proper judges in this point, appears from this, that
when they were at a loss what to offer, and had tried many
sacrifices to no purpose, they consulted their oracles ; for
from them they hoped to have the most certain intelligence
concerning the will of their gods in this as well as other
matters. Cicero gives us a remarkable instance of this" ;
" The Athenians," says he, " consulted Apollo, ( What modes of

» De Legib., lib. ii. post med. Aves xii. vol. viii. p. 608. Ed. Bekker, 1826.]
divitissima dona. [The reading in u Cum consulerent Athenienses
Olivet's and all other Editions of Ci- Apollinem Pythium, quas potissimum
cero, which the Editor has consulted, religiones tenerent, oraculum editum
is this : " Divinissima autem dona, est, eas, qua essent in more majorum.
aves et formae ab uno pictore uno ab- Quo cum iterum venissent, majorum-
solutae die;" Cicero De Legibus,lib. ii. que morem dixissent saepe esse muta-
c. 18. torn. iii. p. 152. Ed. Olivet. turn, quaesivissentque quern morem
Paris. 1740. It is confirmed by the potissimum sequerentur e variis, re-
passage in Plato, from which it was spondit, optimum. Et profecto ita est,
originally taken : dfi6rara Se Swpa op- ut id habendum sit antiquissimum, et
vtOes re Kal ayd\(j.a.Ta, '6<ra irep &i/ tv fj.ia. Deo proximum, quod sit optimum. —
TsairoTf\fj. — Legg.,lib. De Legib. post med., lib. ii.

92 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE

CHAP, worship they should retain ?' the oracle answered, 'Such as
- their ancestors had practised/ When they came again, and
said, f The practice of their ancestors had been often altered/
and desired to know, ' which mode of the various modes of
their ancestors, they should choose ?' the answer was, ' That
which was the best/ And truly that which is best is to be
accounted most ancient and most agreeable to the gods,"
as Cicero there adds. And from hence we may learn the
great uncertainty and inconsistency of tradition in things
relating to religion ; and yet at the same time the common
notion of mankind, that, where it does appear to be certain
and uniform, a great regard is due to it. From hence appear
the endless doubts and perplexities of the heathen in reli
gious matters; and from hence we learn what their judg
ment was, as to the doctrine I am now speaking of; namely,
that when the Divine will can be known concerning the
manner and properties of sacrifice, we are to look no far
ther : for it was to this end that the oracle was consulted,
though the question which they put was rather evaded
than answered.

And their They who looked upon themselves as better assured con-
tion!rs cerning the will of their gods, in relation to the quality of
the beast which they were to offer, were most dotingly
superstitious in taking care that the beast might be precisely
such as that god required. Of this the Egyptians x are a
very noted instance ; who, being persuaded that their gods,
especially Epaphus or Apis, though black himself, had a
strong aversion to that colour in any bull that was sacrificed
to him, used to appoint an officer on purpose to view and
inspect with the most nice exactness the whole body and
tail of the bull which was to be slain in honour to him.
They did not think it sufficient to have him carefully surveyed
as he was standing on his legs, but they threw him on his
back and carefully pried into every part ; and if but one
black hair appeared, he was rejected as unworthy to become
a sacrifice to Apis. If, after the strictest examination, not
one black hair was found about him, he was marked or sealed
by the officer who made the inspection ; and it was present
death, by the law, to offer any bull that wanted his seal.

* Herodot. Euterpe, c. 38, 39.

ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 93

2. Now to apply what has been said to the Eucharist, and SECT.
to shew in what measure these qualities belong to it ; we - -- '—-
have here that sacrifice, which is, if we respect the natural ties of
qualities of it, such an one as some of the wisest men have wine rea-

esteemed more agreeable to the nature of Divine worship g
than any other ; a sacrifice free from all that stench and Sacrifice.
gore, with which bloody oblations are more or less accom
panied, and which made them loathed by men of nice and
tender senses.

But, because what has life and blood is in its own nature Especially
to be preferred before that which is senseless ; because God,
in the Law which He gave to the Jews, preferred bloody
sacrifices before unbloody ones, and allowed a meal-offering
to be an atonement for sin, only in case the offender were
too poor to bring a bullock or a goat ; and especially since
God's own sacrifice, the Passover, was a lamb, not a sacrifice
of meal or of the fruits of the earth; therefore, to render
ourselves sensible of the true value of the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist, we are to consider it as intended by Christ to be
a full and perfect representation of His Body and Blood;
and Christ's Sacramental Body and Blood are as useful and
beneficial to us, as if we had His natural Body lying on our
Altars : and so the Eucharist has the purity and cleanliness
of an unbloody sacrifice, and the value of a bloody one ; it is
of infinitely greater efficacy than all the bloody sacrifices of
the Jews joined together, as being the Communion of the
Body and Blood of Christ. It is not only the best we have
to give ; but it is that, which, by the will of God and our
Redeemer, we are authorized to offer as long as the world
endures ; for thus we are to shew forth Christ's death until
He come. And thus the holy Eucharist is the pure meal-
offering, every where to be presented on God's Altar ; and
this meal-offering is to us, in spirit and power, the Body of
Christ, Which takes away the sins of the world.

The intimation that I have given, that bloody sacrifices The Sacri-
have somewhat of impurity in them, may at first sight seem Christ pure,
to reflect dishonour on the great Sacrifice of Christ, Who
was slain as a lamb without spot or blemish ; but this sur
mise will vanish, when it is considered, that the reason of this
impurity proceeds from the corruptible nature of all the

94 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE

CHAP, bodies of living creatures; but now the Body of Christ
— Jesus was not subject to this weakness or infirmity ; He

saw no corruption," nor was He liable to any. By the
will of God, and the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature
with His human Body, He was freed from the common law
of putrefaction.

The slaying It is evident, there was one very gross impurity, a moral

pure; and as well as natural turpitude, which accompanied the sacri-

notrecr™ ncing °f Christ's natural Body ; I mean the barbarous and

formed by inhuman violence, by which It was slain. If the slaying

this sacrifice had been an action necessary to be performed

by the priest, it is evident that Christ could not have been

a proper sacrifice, unless it can be supposed that the Holy

Jesus could be guilty of laying violent hands on Himself;

and if we will believe Scripture, it is certain in fact that

He did not. St. Peter directly charges the Jews with this

Acts ii. 22, horrible murder ; " Ye men of Israel, hear these words ;

OQ

Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by
miracles, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified

Acts Hi. 15. and slain;" and again, "Ye denied the Holy One and Just,
and desired a murderer to be given unto you, and killed the
Prince of life." And the same Apostle says twice, that the

Acts v. 30; Jews "slew Jesus, and hanged Him on a tree." And if
St. Peter had not charged the Jews with the murder of
Christ Jesus in such down-right terms as he did; yet we
have the history of the process of this whole affair. We
know that the Jews extorted the sentence of death from
Pilate by their importunate clamours ; that Christ was the
instrument of His own death, only by resigning Himself up
to God, and submitting to the violence of His enemies. We
are assured, that the soldiers nailed Him to the Cross ; he, that
did most effectually shed His Blood by piercing His side, was
a man of arms, and not a priest ; and therefore we may safely
pronounce, that though the sacrifice and oblation were the
most pure and perfect that ever were, or can be, performed ;
yet, on the other side, the killing of this Sacrifice was the
most wicked action that ever was, or can be, committed;
and that therefore it was necessary, that the slaying the
Sacrifice, and the offering it, should be separated from each
other. And Christ, by His wisdom, did not only make a

ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 95

distinction between those two actions, by doing the pure SECT.

part Himself, and leaving the wicked part to be done by His —

enemies : but He put a considerable distance of time between
these two actions : He performed the oblation over night,
immediately after He had eaten the Passover ; He offered
Himself under the symbols of Bread and Wine, when He
instituted the Eucharist ; but He was not slain till the next
day, till about twenty hours after He had as a Priest offered
Himself a Sacrifice to God. We are therefore very certain,
that Christ did not, could not offer Himself by killing the
Sacrifice; for then He must have killed Himself, and then
this bloody sacrifice must have been in all respects grossly
impure : but by providing that there should be so large an
interval between the one and the other, He hath effectually
secured the purity of the Sacrifice ; and the slaying of this
Sacrifice was done once for all, and is never to be repeated.
But what Christ did, when He gave Himself to God under
the types of Bread and Wine, we are commanded to do in
remembrance of Him.

Our Saviour, indeed, "laid down His life," and so does HOW our
every Martyr that dies for the honour of God and the benefit ^down
of the Church ; so St. John tells us, " We ought also to lay His life-
down our lives for the brethren:" but nobody, I suppose, will 1 j0hniii.
call him a Martyr, who puts himself to death. When there- 1Q'
fore Christ says, " I have power to lay down My life, and I John x. 18.
have power to take it again," His meaning is, that He had
not only that power, which every man certainly has, to lay
down his own life ; but that He had power to take it again,
in which He exceeded other men. A Martyr lays down his
life, when by a devout act of self-resignation he expresses his
readiness to die, in order to give testimony to the truth. Our
Saviour laid down His life, when by a free act of His own
will He did give His Body and Blood to God in the holy
Sacrament.

I question not but that our Saviour, as He was a Divine
person, had power to shorten or lengthen His own life with
out the application of outward means ; but I believe very few
will be of opinion, that our Saviour could by a Divine act
shorten His life without a blemish to His virtue. He came
to be a perfect example of all duty ; and wilfully to hasten

96 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE

CHAp. our own death will scarce be allowed to be agreeable to the
— — rules of religion; and we may safely presume, that our Saviour

would never do any thing that is not reconcilable to the
most strict rules of virtue. And though our Saviour's Divine
power was sufficient to have put a present period to His life,
whenever He thought fit ; yet it is to be observed that it has
always been the opinion of the wisest Christians, that this
Divine power did not at all exert itself during the time of
Mark xv. His temptation and crucifixion. Pilate indeed " marvelled,
if He were already dead:" but he had had no occasion to
wonder, if he had known how our Saviour's constitution was
broken with the continual hardships of His life, the frequent
watchings and fastings which He practised, with the zeal He
had for God's house and the purity of His worship by which
He was eaten or consumed, with the contradiction of so
many perverse enemies, and especially with that agony which
seized and continued on Him so many hours the night before,
which was so violent that it forced from Him great drops of
blood ; and, lastly, with His bearing the Cross, so long as His
strength enabled Him ; if, I say, Pilate had considered all
this, he would not have found any occasion to wonder, that
in six hours' hanging on the Cross nature was spent and life
failed. He that considers how our Saviour passed the fore
going night, and especially what He underwent in the garden,
will see reason to conclude, that He must have been half dead
before He was nailed to the Cross. There is no doubt but
our Saviour died sooner than malefactors commonly did, or
than the two thieves crucified with Him. Felons and muti
neers are for the most part a hardy race; they maintain
nature well with plunder and rapine ; whilst our Saviour by
mortification and self-denial had made the stream of life run
very low, even before He came to suffer. The two thieves
had not undergone such an agony as our Saviour did the
foregoing night, and had probably been strangers to most of
those hardships, which reduced Christ Jesus to so weak and
feeble a condition.

They are hard put to it for arguments against the doctrine
of the Eucharist, who will assert, that Christ offered Himself
a Sacrifice upon the Cross only here on earth, and that He
was offered only by being slain ; and so render the Sacrifice

ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 97

of Christ a very bloody one indeed; so bloody as that it can- SECT,
not be reconciled to purity of any sort, until killing one's-self -
be esteemed a virtue.

CHAP. I. SECT. VI.

Concerning the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist,
with the sacrifices of the ancients , as to the manner in which
it is offered.

MY reader will not expect, when I undertake to shew the NO certain
manner of offering sacrifice, that I should enter into a long
and needless discourse concerning all the lesser ceremonies
used either by the ancient Jews or heathen or by the Chris
tian Church in offering sacrifice. This would be not only
tedious and even endless, but also altogether useless. The
music, dancing, habits, of the priests and assistants ; the gar
lands, perfumes, and other rites used upon killing and offer
ing sacrifice, were rather the garnish than necessary for
malities. My business is to inquire, what were those rites
or forms, whereby the ancients did offer their sacrifices, and
which were so necessary to the offering of them, that with
out those rites and forms the sacrifice could not be ; and my
end in doing this is to convince my reader, that no certain
rite or mode of offering a sacrifice, excepting that of prayer,
is in itself so necessary, as that a sacrifice loses its nature
by being offered in another manner. If indeed a Jew offered
a beast without using the forms prescribed by the Law of
Moses, or in manner contrary to that Law, as Saul did, it is
confessed this was no legal sacrifice ; but it was still a sacri
fice, and acknowledged so to be by Samuel, or whoever wrote
this history ; for he expressly declares that Saul " offered a 1 Sam. xiii.
burnt-offering:" and I suppose no one can doubt but that 9'
a burnt-offering is a sacrifice.

Now the only rites or actions that can be supposed neces
sary to sacrifice, are either,

1. The slaying of it, if it were a living creature;

2. Or the sprinkling of the blood ;

3. Or the burning all or some part of the sacrifice on the

JOHNSON. jj

98 NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP, altar, whether it were a sacrifice with life and blood, or with-
: out it ;

4. Or the waving of the thing offered among the Jews,
and the scattering of cakes or the corn and salt among the
Gentiles ;

5. Or else the presenting any creature with prayer to God
upon or at the altar.

Slaying, 1. The slaying of the sacrifice, if it be a living creature, is
of obiatio^ commonly thought a rite absolutely necessary ; and, indeed,
Jews g the ^ was so *n a^ ^nose sacrifices of beasts among the Jews and
Gentiles, in which it was required that the blood should be
poured out at the foot of the altar ; but yet, even in this case,
to slay the sacrifice and to offer were two actions distinct
from each other ; and, indeed, the Jewsy do expressly declare
it. They own that the killing of the holy things, or even the
most holy, that is, the sacrifice for sin and trespass, might be
done by strangers as well as by the Levites or the lay-offerers ;
whereas the solemn oblation could be performed by none b ut
a priest. And, indeed, it is very evident by what has been
already said, that things which have no life or blood may be
a true sacrifice, though they are incapable of being killed ;
and if slaying the sacrifice were the act by which it is offered,
and necessary to be performed by the priest, this would annul
the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ Himself, except any
one will blasphemously say that He murdered His own Body.
Nor among And even the ancient Gentiles looked on the killing of the
sacrifice, not as the action by which it was offered up, but
only as an action necessary to be performed in order to the
consuming of it ; for the Gentile priest did not usually per
form this servile office. Chryses, in Homer, officiates as a
priest in the first sacrifice which that poet describes, but th e
beasts were killed by those who assisted at that solemnity2;
and he commonly uses the same words in the account he
gives of other sacrifices. And in another narration, which
the same poet gives of a sacrifice a, Nestor performed the

y See Ainsworth on Levit. i. 5, and ver. 14, speaking of a well-grown beast

Lightfoot. offered in sacrifice, thus expresses him-

z Avepvffav fjikv irpwra, Kal ecr</>a£av self,

/cat eSeipav, Iliad. A. ver. 459. These et a grandi cervix ferienda

words are repeated, as often as Homer ministro.

describes a sacrifice. Juvenal, Sat. xii. a Odys. r. about ver. 450.

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 99

priest's office, but Thrasymedes strikes the bullock down, SECT,
and Pisistratus cuts its throat. No doubt, there are in- -
stances of the priest's killing the sacrifice upon some special
occasions among the heathen as well as among the Jews ; but
since this was not perpetual, it is evident they did not es
teem the slaying of it to be the rite, or one of the rites, by
which the priestly oblation was performed ; for then it must
have been done by none but the priest. It is true, the later
Greeks, being chiefly used to bloody sacrifices, and making
their language agreeable to their practice, express ' sacrificing'
and ' killing' by one and the same wordb: but this was but a
corruption of their language; for I have elsewhere0 shewed
that the word did at first signify not fto kill/ but ' to burn,'
or otherwise to offer anything to God.

2. As to the sprinkling of the blood, this was indeed, ac
cording to the notions of the Jewish Rabbies, the very root
of their sacrifices ; that is, by this means the beasts became
proper sacrifices. But then this can be meant only of those
which had life; whereas I have shewed, that there is great
reason to believe that more unbloody sacrifices were offered
at the altar of Jerusalem than bloody; and the sprinkling
of the blood could not be the root of a meal-offering. Nay,
whatever the modern Rabbies may pretend, yet it is plain
that both the goats offered on the day of expiation were a
sin-offering ; and they are so expressly called by Moses : yet Lev. xvi. 5.
one of these was not slain at all, nor by consequence could
its blood be sprinkled by the priests ; it was " presented alive Lev. xvi.
before the Lord to make an atonement :" so that a sacrifice
might expiate guilt, though the blood of it was still running
in its veins.

But as to the heathen, they were perfect strangers to this
rite of the priest's sprinkling the blood. I have used my
utmost diligence in inquiring into this matter, and cannot
discover one single proof, that it was ever used at any altar
or sacrifice, but the Jewish only. I have not only looked
into Homer and the Greek Dramatics, and made the strictest

b Viz., ®6civ. the guests set down, the Poet says of

« See Part I. p. [74.] I might have Achilles,

produced another passage from Homer 6fo?(n 5e Qvtrai avwyti

II. i. ver. 219, where, after the sacrifice ndrpoKXov, bv fratpof 6 5' 4v irvpl

was killed, and the feast prepared, and £aAAe Qvr)\ds.

H 2

100

NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP, search that I could into other writers both Greek and Latin,
— but into those who have made collections of Greek and
Roman antiquities ; even the diligence of Gronovius hath not
furnished us with one single example of " sprinkling" blood
on the altar. It is true, the blood of the beast was commonly
let out of its throat so near the foot of the altar, that it
could scarce be, but that some of it must of necessity wet
the altar ; but this proceeded from the slaying of it, which
I have shewed not to have been the action by which it was
offered, nay, generally speaking, not performed by the priest.
I have put in the margind those passages of the ancient
writers, which relate to this affair, that so my reader may
judge for himself. However, this is a rite belonging to
bloody sacrifices only.

Burning 3. As to the rite of burning the whole or part of the
sary to sacrifice, it must be owned that this was more universally

d Herodotus, Melpomene, c. 62, de
scribes a barbarous sacrifice of the
Scythians to Mars, to whom they of
fered many beasts, and especially horse?,
and sometimes captive men. The altar
was a very large wood- stack three sta
dia square, one side of which was a
gentle ascent. An old scymitar was
fastened on the stack, which was the
aya\fjta, or representation of Mars ;
they killed the sacrifice in a certain
vessel, and carried up the blood and
poured it on the scymitar. It is pro
bable this sacrifice was, as to the man
ner of it, singular, and adapted to the
bloody nature of the supposed god, to
whom it was offeied. On the contrary,
when a sacrifice was offered to Peace,
the Grecians slew it at a distance from
the altar, "lest the altar of Peace should
be defiled with blood," as we learn from
Aristophanes's Pax, versus finem. No
conclusion can be made from these sin
gular instances as to the general rules
of sacrifice, but only this, that some
gods delighted to be drenched with
blood, but that others abhorred it ; and
that, therefore, it was not any certain
necessary rite of sacrificing. In the
instance from Herodotus, not the altar
but the agalma was perfused. Eu
ripides, Iphig. in Aul. ver. 1563, in de
scribing the sacrifice of that virgin,
represents the priest, as taking the sa
crificing knife, and considering where
he should strike; all hear the blow,

but Iphigenia disappears j and in her
stead a hart lies panting on the ground,
and the altar is wet with drops of blood ;
the Greek words are ffipaiver' apdrjv.
Now this could not proceed from any
sprinkling of the blood, distinct from
the slaying ; for no other action or
operation had passed upon Iphigenia,
and the hart lying slain was only her
substitute.

That which is most to the purpose is
a citation from Lucian, thus describing
a heathen priest; 'O 5' iepevs avTus

f)/j.ay/j.evos, Kal &(nr€p 6 Ku-
e'ivos, av are p.vu>v, ital TO, ey-Kara

Kal Kap5iov\K(av Kal ib aT/j.a
fptxtW «al ri yap OVK eu-
(re/3es eiriTeXuv; [De Sacrificiis, p. 186.
Ed. Paris. 1615.]. He says, "The priest
stood pouring blood about the altar;"
but one instance, and that a very late
one, is of small weight in this case ;
and, further, Lucian's authority may
justly be questioned, because it is not
to be supposed that he was a frequenter
of the temples and sacrifices. Scoffers
are not always the greatest knowers ;
and, after all, my reader will make a
great difference between pouring and
sprinkling; at another place, (viz., p.
185,) of this very Dialogue, he describes
the gods, as irivovres al/j.a TOIS /8o>yuo?s
irpox^Htvov, ''drinking the blood poured
on the altars," not "licking the drops
sprinkled on the altars."

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 101

practised than any other, though still not so universally as SECT.
to make it absolutely necessary to a sacrifice. It is certain, — - — —

IT13,K6 3, S3,"

the Persians6 used no fire in their sacrifices; Herodotus crifice, ac-
takes particular notice of this, and yet is far enough from the notion
doubting whether they were sacrifices or not, on this account, j
They worshipped the fire as a god ; and therefore to put what
was offered to another god into the fire was, in their notion,
to give that to one god, which was intended for another,
The same writer assures us, that the ancient Scythians f used
no fire in their sacrifices ; and that the Nomadesg, instead
of laying what they sacrificed on the fire, threw it on the
top of the house : and Diogenes Laertiush informs us, that
Pythagoras performed his devotions at the altar of Delos,
which was called the "Unbloody Altar, the Altar of the Godly,"
which was " without fire ." Yet I apprehend ' that no wise man
ever made a question, whether these nations or this philoso
pher did offer real sacrifices. Apollonius Rhodiusk tells us of
a sheep offered as a sacrifice by being thrown into the sea.
Virgil1 describes to us a sacrifice of the same sort.

Yet it is certain, the main of the Jewish and Gentile sacri-

e Herodot. Clio, c. 132. I am sen- (rroTeATjs iv Ayhiow TroAiTeiot. In Vita

sible Dr. Hyde (De Relig. veterum Pythag., p. 217.]

Pers.) denies that the Persians \vor- k Afya8' by eVcrv/ueVtws ^Kpivaro, Kai

shipped the fire with Divine honour ; fj.iv atipas

and asserts, that they offered their sa- 2<f>a|e Kara Trpt^uprjs, fir] 8'

crifices by fire to the One True God. evx^po"4 —

But his evidences are modern, or of an 7H p' a/j.a. 5' cvxuXfjffiv

Uncertain age, and therefore I conceive \aifj.orofj.-f]cras

not to be laid in the scale against the TH«e KOTO irpvp.i>f]s. — [Argonautic.,

unanimous suffrage of the ancients, lib. iv. vv. 1595 — 16(f2. Ed.

especially in a point where men were Stephano, 1574.]

capable of being determined by their ' ^En. v. ver. 772.

own eye-sight ; such was their burning Tres Eryci vitulos, et tempestatibus

or not burning their sacrifices. The agnam,

modern Persians of the Magian sect Csedere deinde jubet, solvique ex

may differ from their ancestors in these ordine funem.

points. However, the old Grecians, Stans procul in prora pateram tenet,

who denied that the Persians burnt extaque salsos

their sacrifices, did, notwithstanding Porricit in fluctus, et vina liquentia

this, allow them to be sacrifices ; and fudit.

therefore my argument holds good, And again, ./En. v. ver. 235, Cloan-

whether the Persians consumed their thus makes this vow,

sacrifices by fire or otherwise. Di, quibus imperium est pelagi,

' Herodot. Melpomene, c. 60, 61. quorum aequora curro,

e Herodot. Id., c. 188. Vobis laetus ego hoc candentem in

h See Sect. 1. of this chapter, versus litore taurum

finem. Constituam ante aras, votis reus,

' Diogenes La. says of Aristotle, extaque salsos

that he denied that Pythagoras ever Projiciam in fluctus, et vina liquen-

offered iepttov, that is, an animal sacri- tia fundam.
fice. [itpflov 8e /UTjS^r, &s (pi]aiv 'Apt-

102 NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP, fices were burnt in whole or in part: but if we will speak
Burnin — strictly, the burning was not the action by which the sacrifice
may be con- was offered; that was rather esteemed the Divine act, by
either as an which God accepted the sacrifice. It is well known, that
ceptance" ^ne ^re On ^ne Jewish altar first came from heaven, and this
or an act of fire was tt ever ^o ^e Dlirnninr On the altar, it was never to go

oblation. °

Lev. ix.24; out ;" and what was devoured by this fire was esteemed to be
i?Lev; vi!' accepted by God, and was therefore called the « Bread of God"
12, 13. or « Food of God^ The Rabbies ten I1S it Was looked upon as

an argument that God was not pleased with the sacrifice, if
any part of the flesh laid on the altar remained unconsumed ;
therefore many learned men are of opinion, that the people
were thought by David m to wish that God would " remember
all his offerings, and turn to ashes all his burnt-offerings," in
token of acceptance. Both the true Israelites and the wor-
i Kings shippers of Baal unanimously agree in this, that " the God who
answered by fire, he should be God ;" and when the fire of
the Lord fell and consumed the burnt-sacrifice, all the
people that saw it fell on their faces and said, " the Lord, He is
the God." This is a demonstration, that the burning was indeed
an act of God; and therefore it could not be the act by which
the sacrifice was offered, for that must be an act of man.
And though the fire did not come down on the altar at Jeru
salem, as often as sacrifice was offered, yet all sacrifice there
was to be burnt with that fire, which first came from God ;
and therefore all of them were in effect consumed by the fire
of the Lord, by which He shewed His acceptance of them. If
indeed by " burning" be meant only ' laying it on the fire/ in
this sense it must be owned, that burning was an action
whereby the oblation was made. Therefore it is often said
of the priests, that they " offered the fat," that is, they did in
due form lay [it] on the fire of the altar ; but if by " burning"
be meant ' consuming it/ then it is evident that this was no
action of the priest's ; it was done by the fire of God, and by
it the sacrifice was not offered but accepted.

No sacrifice Therefore, if we will discourse according to the rigid laws

by being of truth, we cannot say that any sacrifice, even among the

•ffered. JewSj was consumed in being offered. The priest offered it

by laying it on the altar ; God consumed it by the fire, which

m Psalm xx. 4. See the margin of our English translation.

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 103

He sent from heaven to shew His acceptance of the sacrifice SECT.

there performed, and which was by His commandment always '- — •

kept there for this purpose. And though these two actions
of laying the flesh on the fire and consuming it were at a very
small distance from each other in time and order of doing,
yet they are widely different in the intention of the law-maker
and in their import as concerning sacrifice ; for one was the
act of man offering, the other was the act of God accepting.

Not only the worshippers of Baal, but many other heathens, The hea-
have esteemed the consuming the sacrifice as an action per- on the
formed by the god, to whom it was offered. It has been JjJnS?
shewed11, that they thought the gods feasted with them, and acceptance.
that what was put into the fire was esteemed the god's share ;
and therefore, as they likewise pretended to have Divine0
or heavenly fire on their altars, so they thought the gods
were more or less pleased with the sacrifice, according as
the flame had more or less of brightness and vigour. No
less a man than Cicero p promised himself good success,
because, when his wife had sacrificed and was going to make
some libations on the ashes, of a sudden the flame did of it
self rise out of the ashes to receive her devotions. Pindar q
tells us, the Rhodians performed "a sacrifice without fire;" but
that Jupiter rained down upon them " a golden shower." This
shews that the distinction between the offering the sacrifice
and the acceptance of it was very old even among the heathen.

n Sect. II. of this chapter. Ter liquido ardentem perfudit nec-

o Servius on JEi\. xii. ver. 200, has tare Vestam:

these words, Apud majores arse non Ter flamma ad summum tecti sub-

incendebantur, sed ignem Divinum jecta reluxit.

precibus eliciebant qui incendebant Omine quo firmans animum .

altaria. Euripides thus describes a hopeless

Alphesibceus pleases himself, that sacrifice, Bu^ois T' &£Ae/cTot TreAovoi. —

the fire kindled itself on the altar to [Helena, v. 1334.]

consume his offerings. See Virgil, P See Servius on Eclog. viii. ver.

Eel. viii. ver. 105. 105. Sine igne subito ex ipsis cine-

Aspice ; corripuit tremulis altaria ribus flamma emersit. Hoc uxori Ci-

flammis ceronis dicitur contigisse ; cum peracto

Sponte sua, dum ferre moror, cinis sacrificio libare vellet in cinerem, ex

ipse. Bonum sit! ipso cinere flamma surrexit, quag flam-

And part of the same Poet's descrip- ma eodem anno Consulem futurumos-

tion of a hopeless sacrifice is this; tendit ejus maritum ; sicut Cicero in

Georg. iv. ver. 490. suo testatur Poemate.

Inde neque impositis ardent altaria i Pindar. Olymp. 7.

fibris, TeC|oi/ 8' airvpois lepoTs

Nee responsa potest consultus red- "A\<rostv aKpo-rrfafi. Kefoourt pec gcu/-

dere vates. Q&.V aya-

And again, Georg. iv. ver. 384. Tlo\vv 5<re

104 NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP. Whether the "golden shower" were a fire or not, yet it is
'• certain he meant it as a token of the Divine acceptance. This

was probably an intimation of what is related concerning fires

Lev. ix. 24; descending from heaven on the altars erected by Moses,

xxi. 26; David, and Solomon. This, I think, is clear enough from the

viLhL°n notions of the heathen, as well as from our sacred records,

that the consuming the sacrifice by fire was rather the action

whereby the Divine acceptance of the sacrifice was signified,

than the action whereby the sacrifice was presented to God.

Neither Nor were the rites of laying the sacrifice on the altar or

nor laying on the fire so necessary as that nothing was esteemed a

aitar abso- sacrifice, when this ceremony was omitted. It is certain, the

lately ne- Persians had no altars, nor the Nomades ; and God's own

cessary.

sacrifice, the Passover, was first offered in the land of Egypt,
where it is not credible that every family of the Israelites
could have an altar : and if they had, it is clear they made
no use of it on this occasion ; for the blood of the lamb was
Exod. xii. sprinkled not on an altar, but on the two side-posts and the
upper door-posts of their houses; though, after the temple
2 Chron. was built, the blood of the lamb was sprinkled by the priests
on the altar there, and by this ceremony the whole lamb
became a sacrifice to Godr. If the Jews in after-ages did
burn any part of it, which yet is not sufficiently proved, this
was only a departure from the first institution. God Himself
made it a sacrifice, without enjoining this rite of laying any
part of it on the fire ; and, sure, it must be allowed, that He
is the most proper judge of what is a sacrifice, and of what
ought to be deemed so by us.

Cain and By what rites or in what manner Cain and Abel offered
crifice not their sacrifices to God, we can only guess. If they did it by
burning?" laying wnat tney offered on an altar or fire-hearth, as is com-
nor Abra- mOnly supposed, and God shewed His acceptance of Abel's
xv. ' by causing fire to fall on it from heaven, which is the common
opinion ; then we have another great evidence that the con
suming of the sacrifice is an act of God and not of him that
sacrifices. Cain offered his fruits, as well as Abel his cattle ;
but, upon this supposition, Abel's sacrifice only was burnt,
Cain's was not; both of them had sacrificed, before either
Gen. xv. 9 of their sacrifices was consumed bv fire. Abraham's covenant-

-18.

r See Sect. I. of this chapter.

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 105

ing sacrifice was performed without any altar, nor did either SECT.
God or Abraham consume it by fire ; but the night after it -
was offered, while the beasts and birds which he had slain
were lying in that order, [in] which Abraham had left them
the day before, "a smoking furnace and a burning lamp
passed between the pieces/' not only to signify the fiery
trials into which Abraham and his posterity were like to fall,
but to give Abraham an assurance of the confirmation of the
covenant between God and himself. It seems probable, that
all the other sacrifices before the Law, which are mentioned
in Scripture, were consumed by fire.

But there is no reason to believe, that nothing was esteemed Not the
a sacrifice under the Law but what was burnt on the altar ; for
not to mention what has been already said of the Passover, the
LXX Interpreters expressly call the two wave-loaves " a new Lev. xxiii.
sacrifice /' though they were baked with leaven, and there- J^; xxm-
fore were not to be burnt upon God's altar either in whole Lev. 17.
or in part. We are sure that the scape-goat served the ends
and purposes of a sacrifice for sins. It was twice presented Lev. xvi. 7.
to the Lord, once together with the other goat, and after- 10'
wards distinctly by itself. It was " presented alive before the
Lord to make an atonement/' and is called a sin-offering, Lev. xvi. 5.
and had the sins of the people actually transferred upon it ; Lev. xvi.

21 22

it is expressly said, that " all the iniquities and transgressions
of the children of Israel shall be put on the head of the goat ;"
which is so full a declaration of the goat's being deputed in
the stead of the people, as is no where else to be found. And
to dispute after all this, whether the scape-goat was a sacri
fice, is as mere a strife about words as was ever yet raised ;
and from hence it unavoidably follows, that it is not abso
lutely necessary that a sacrifice be consumed either by fire
or by eating and drinking : it is sufficient that it be disposed
of according to the will of God.

4. Some sacrifices among the Jews were offered to God by Waving,
being waved or swung by the hands of the priest toward the S^ritTof
several points of the universe. This was the action by which sacrifice-
the loaves at the feast of Pentecost became a sacrifice ; and I Lev. xxiii.
suppose the same may be said of the sheaf or omer of corn xxiiSfii ;
for the first-fruits. The beasts offered upon both these oc- x *2— le.
casioris were likewise to be waved, and so were several other

106

NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP,

Nor scatter-

salted cake
orcorn.

The great
on meal-

the Law.

sacrifices; but then they were also burnt in whole or in
part, as the offering of the first-fruits was not, because leaven
was mingled with it. But since those wave-offerings were
but few in comparison of those which were offered in another
manner, therefore no man will, I presume, suppose that this
rite was so necessary as that no sacrifice could be offered in
any other manner.

It does not appear, that the Gentiles had any ceremony
like that of waving in their sacrifices ; but they had univer
sally a custom of breaking cakes or scattering barley mixed
with salt upon the sacrifice before it was killed, if it was a
beast, and of pouring wine upon the head of it. This is what
needs no proof, because it is allowed by all. And, indeed,
this was by the Greeks and Romans hardly ever omitted;
insomuch that ' to immolate/ that is, to cast the barley and
salt upon a beast, and ' to sacrifice' it, are used as phrases of
the same signification, and that very frequently. Yet it can
by no means be said, that no living creature could be made a
sacrifice without the use of this rite ; for then the sacrifices
of the Jews, which were not offered in this manner, must be
declared to have been defective,

The Jews, indeed, had their meal-offerings and wine-
offerings, and these two joined with all their sacrifices of
beasts8, excepting those for sin and trespass, as I have before
observed; but there was this great difference between the
Jews and Gentiles in this particular, that the meal and wine,
which ushered in the heathen sacrifices, finished or concluded
the Jewish ; but they were esteemed as necessary to attend
the oblation of a beast among the Jews, as to go before the
oblation of it among the Gentiles. He that reads several
verses together in the twenty-ninth chapter of Numbers, ac
cording to the most ancient translation of the LXX, may
be inclined to think that the meal-offering was indeed the
Jewish sacrifice, and the beast killed before the meal-offering
was intended to be only an introduction to it ; for thus they
render the Hebrew, ver. 2, " Ye shall offer burnt-offerings for
a sweet savour unto the Lord, one young bullock, one ram,
seven lambs of a year old, without blemish;" 3. "Their
sacrifice is [of] fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth-deals

* See Exod. xxix ; Lev. xiv.

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 107

to one bullock; two tenth-deals to one ram, and one tenth- SECT.
deal to every one of the seven lambs ;" 5. " And one kid of -
the goats, for a sin-offering, to make atonement for you;"

6. " Beside the bur nt-offer ings of the new moon, and their
sacrifices, and drink-offerings ; and the continual burnt-
offerings, and their sacrifices, and drink-offerings," &c.

7. "And in the tenth month," &c. 8. "Ye shall offer for a
burnt-offering, one young bullock," &c. (as ver. 2.) 9. "Their
sacrifice shall be [of] fine flour:" again, ver. 11, "The con
tinual burnt-offering, and its sacrifice, and drink-offering,"
&c. This is repeated no less than eighteen times more in this
chapter, and five or six times in the twenty-eighth. In all
these places, not the animal offered, but the meal -offering
presented with it, has the title of a ' sacrifice' given to it. And
we have no reason to doubt but that, if the Apostles or
Christ Jesus had had occasion to have cited any part of this
chapter, they had also called the meal-offering, the sacrifice ;
since * so often as they mention any text, where the meal-
offering is mentioned, they always allow it the name of
1 sacrifice ;' and indeed do generally follow the Greek Trans
lation.

5. The only remaining manner or action, whereby a sacri- Prayer was
fice was of old offered, is prayer or invocation of the Name of sacrifice,

God. And this was, in all probability, the manner by which
the Patriarchs offered their sacrifices. We read of Abraham taught by
and Isaac, that they " built altars, and called on the Name Qen xjj 8 .
of the Lord." I suppose that the most natural meaning of jj1!'^5 x.xi-
these texts is, that they offered sacrifices on the altars which 25.
they erected, and offered them by calling on the Name of
That God, in honour to Whom they at first built the altars.
If we may believe Josephus, Noah offered his sacrifice by
prayer'1. Samuel " cried unto the Lord," when he offered i Sam. vii.
a sucking-lamb; and David "called on the Lord," when he j'chron
sacrificed in the threshing-floor of Araunah : neither of these x*i. 26.
sacrifices were performed according to the Levitical rites, but
after the Patriarchal manner. They were neither of them
sons of Aaron, and therefore sacrificed as Prophets, by an

See Sect. IV. of this chapter. 060.1 T^V Qvaiav irape/caAet, K.CU f

bpyfy en ryv yrjv 6/j.oiav A.a/3e<

. . .

u Jos. Antiquit., lib. i. c. 3. Nc^eos

108 NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP, extraordinary authority, rather than as priests, according to
: the settled laws of Moses. As no sacrifice was ever in earnest

offered by a rational man but with an intention to do honour
to that God to whom it was presented, or to procure some
favour, or to avert some evil ; so it must be owned to be very
natural for them who presented it, to have their minds filled
with devotion toward that God, with desires of procuring the
good or avoiding of the evil, which were the occasion of the
sacrifice ; and it can scarce be conceived but that out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth would speak.

Prayer used Yet it does not appear by any certain text of the Law of
by thT Ce Moses, that prayer was required by any express command of
Jews. Q.O(J to ke use(j ag the settled constant manner or rite of
offering sacrifice to God. Yet this does not prove that they
did not offer their sacrifices by prayer : for, indeed, the Law
of Moses makes no mention of any prayers or praises to be
said or sung over their sacrifices ; yet we are very sure that,
2 chron. " when the burnt-offering began, the song of the Lord began,
28. and all this continued until the burnt-offering was finished."

And the Apocryphal writer of the second Book of Maccabees
2 Mac. i. 23 says, that " the priests made a prayer while the sacrifice was
consuming, Jonathan beginning, and the rest answering
thereto, as Nehemias did :" and one part of this prayer was,
" O Lord, receive the sacrifice of Thy whole people Israel ;"
and the priests sang psalms of thanksgiving. It is true,
this story seems to be a mere fiction ; but it cannot in reason
be supposed, that the inventor would misrepresent the customs
used in sacrificing, because this would have discovered the
forgery to every common reader in the age, wherein it was
first published ; I mean, while the modes used in the sacri
fices at Jerusalem were so well known by all the Jews. But
the authority of Ecclesiasticus is sufficient, if there were no
other, to prove that prayer was used in sacrificing ; for this
Eccies. i. writer having described " the high-priest going up to the
'19' altar, and the sons of Aaron with the oblations in their
hands, and finishing the service at the altar, and pouring the
blood of the grape at the foot of it," he thereupon adds;
" then all the people together hasted, and fell down to the
earth on their faces to worship the Lord God Almighty, and
the singers also sang praises, and the people sought the Lord

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 109

the Most High by prayer, until the solemnity of the Lord was SECT.
ended." It must be confessed, that it does not from any of ' —

these writers appear, that the officiating priest did offer the
sacrifice by prayer. But what I would at present prove
from these passages is, that prayer and praise was used in
sacrificing, though it were not expressly required by the
Law of Moses ; and the silence of the Law of Moses in this
point can no more be an argument against the priests' offering
sacrifice by prayer than against the people's using prayers
upon this occasion. And if the people, with the assisting
priests, did offer prayers and praises together with the sacri
fices; then the officiating priest too might perform the
oblation by prayer, though the Law of Moses do not en
join it.

And though prayer is nowhere in words at length com- Jewish
manded to be used by the priests in offering the Levitical Kf'iy1™
sacrifices : yet there is iust reason to believe that it was suffi- qu»"ed to

offer saeTi-

ciently implied in the Hebrew word kapper, that is, 'making ficeby
an atonement/ It is certain that Moses "made an atonement" EJ^'
for the idolatry of the people by his prayer. The vulgar *xxii- 30»
Latin x commonly so translates it ; and whatever the modern
Jewish Rabbies may say to the contrary, yet the Greek i Sam. ii.
Translators, the Chaldeey, and the Syriac, do allow that the 2o'
Hebrew words pillel and kapper signify ' to pray,' or to make
atonement with prayer. And whereas, on the murmuring2
of the people upon the death of Korah and his company, a
plague broke out and destroyed many of them, whereupon
Aaron put on incense, and made an atonement for the people;
it is evident that the author of the Book of Wisdom by making
an atonement understood praying ; for thus he expresses this
action of Aaron : " He brought the armour of his proper min
istry, even prayer, and the propitiation of incense." And
from hence we may learn, that to pray in the people's behalf
was thought to be the duty of the priest, and a principal one
too, though it was never expressed at large, but under this
comprehensive word of ' making atonement' or ' reconciling/
Further, Dr. Outram argues with very great appearance of

x Orabit. Lev. v. 6. 18 ; ix. 7, &c. ' See Critics on Psalm cvi. 30.

See Dr. Hickes's Christian Priest- z Compare Numb. xvi. 47 ; Wisd.

hood, p. 205. viii. 21.

110 NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP, reason, that the ceremony of laying hands on the head of the

- sacrifice did, according to the sentiments of the Jews, imply

Gen. xiviii. the use of prayer ; for it was a ceremony, by which, blessing,
xix. 15 ; ' ordination to any office, curing the sick, and conferring the
xxxiv.9; H°ty Ghost, were performed. And I think there can be no
J Tim. v. just doubt but that, in all these cases, laying on of hands has

2t2t \ Altirlv

v. 23 ; vi. ever been attended with prayer to God ; and it is therefore

Acts vUi. ' reasonable to believe that when God enjoined the owner of

Q8' He\)Xvf *ne beast to lay his hands on the head of it, in order to offer

it as a sacrifice, the meaning was, that he should by a prayer

Lev. i. 4. offered on the occasion present it to God. And this rite

13- iv.'i3. was enjoined in all common bloody sacrifices, excepting that

of birds. And if the sacrifice were offered in behalf of a

priest, or if it were a more solemn sacrifice of consecration or

Lev. iv. 4 ; expiation, then the priest himself was to lay his hands on the

xvl.' 2. ' ' head of it, and by consequence to offer it by prayer. It

seems evident that the ancient Jews did so understand their

law, and their practice was agreeable to their judgment. Dr.

Outram3 has given us the very words of the forms of prayer

used by the priests in offering the sacrifices on the great day

of expiation.

Why there Upon the whole, though it be very evident, that the Levi-
occaskm tical Law expresses and requires the outward rites and formal-
f°res?com~- ities of sacrifice, in plainer and stronger words than it uses
mand. in relation to the prayers ; yet it is pretty evident, that both
the priests and people of the Jews did apprehend, that sacri
fice ought to be offered with prayer. The Jews and their
ancestors had always worshipped God by sacrifice, as well as
all the other nations of the world ; and to a people so well
acquainted with the modes of this way of worshipping God,
a hint was sufficient. They could not but know that their
fathers and themselves, before the giving of the Law, did offer
their sacrifices by prayer; and there was therefore no ne
cessity for God or Moses to be very large or express in their
instructions as to this particular. The new rites of sprinkling
the blood, and bringing the sacrifice to the door of the taber
nacle, and offering it upon the altar in that tabernacle, and
by the hands of Aaron and his sons only, and other such-like
circumstances, are indeed frequently and in very clear words

a DeSacrif., p. [170. Ed. Lond. 1677.]

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. Ill

repeated and inculcated ; but there was no occasion to be so SEC T.
exact and to speak so largely on a point, of which scarce any -
one could be ignorant. Indeed, their own common sense
would go a great way in directing them as to this matter ; for
they could not but know, that all sacrifice was intended as
an honour to God, and either to beg somewhat of Him, or to
praise Him for some mercy already received ; and it is as na
tural for men to speak their thoughts on such occasions, as it
is to have such thoughts. And if it could be proved, that the
Jewish priests and people did never express their devotions in
words at the offering their sacrifices ; yet it can not be con
ceived that they should sacrifice without the inward prayer
of the mind, except you will suppose them to have been per
fectly stupid as well as indevout.

And what does further convince me that natural reason Gentiles
will instruct men to offer their sacrifice by prayer is this, that offered by
the Gentiles did universally offer their sacrifices in this man- PraJer-
ner, Of this we have abundance of proof both from Greek
and Latin authors, who lived in those very times when this
way of worship did universally prevail, and might be daily
eye-witnesses of it. I think this a matter of very considerable
moment, and for that reason have in my marginb presented

b Homer, in the description of the with Telemachus, landed at Pylos, and

hecatomb sent by Agamemnon, and came upon Nestor and his guests while

offered by Chryses as priest to Apollo, they were engaged in a sacrificial feast

has these words, Iliad. A. 447. in honour to Neptune. Pisistratus

- -- Tol 8' &Ka 6e<f K\eirr]v e/ca- says to the personated Antenor, Odys.

T6/j.&r}v T. ver. 43.

vvv,
Xepi/ii|/ai/To 8' Hireira, Kal ovhoxvras O.KTI'

Toy yap Kal SCUTTJS rjvT'h&aTf, Seupo

pas avaaxw' Avrdp E'TT^I/ (nretVps re Kal ey^eai, 77

K\vdt ,uey, 'Apyvptrog, -- Qepis eVrtV, K. T. A.

*fi.s %<par evx6/J.ei>os - Antenor prays accordingly,

Avrap ^Tret p' ftfi-avTo, Kal ov\oxvras K\vdi, UocreiSdov, K. r. A.

Trpofld\ovTO, K. T. A. Nestor sacrifices to Minerva for having

In the description of the sacrifice, appeared to him ; the ox and other

in which Agamemnon performed the things being prepared, Homer thus

priest's office, he has the following proceeds, Odys. T. 444.

words, Iliad. B.^410.^ - -ye'pwi/ 8' nrTrrjAara NcVrwp

- Kal OV\OXVTO.S avsXovTO' Xepvi/Sa T' ov\oxvras re

8' €vx6/J.fvos /xere'^Tj Kpeiuv TroAAo 8' '

6V irvpl
Aurop e-TTfi p' efyavTo, Kal ovKoxvras Avrap tirtCp' etf£ai/TO, Kal ov\oxvras

Trpofrd\ovTO, Trpo/SaAoiro, K. T. A.

Avepvo-av fj.€v wpura - . In a sacrifice mentioned by Apollonius

Minerva (in the person of Antenor), Rhodius, you have these words, Ar-

112 NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP, to my reader's view great evidence of it, from the age of

: Homer down to that of Pliny and Seneca the tragedian.

And from these authorities it will appear, not only that they

gonautic. A. ver. 1593.

-- Kal
Kara i

p.lv aeipas
, eVt S'

AajSe r

rbv div.

p' a/xaS' evx«A?;<riJ/ e's vSara Acu-

^H/ce Kara irpvfji.v'rjs.
Herodotus, Clio, c. 132. de Persis,
Ta>v Se as l/caVr^ Qvtiv tJe'Aet, es %&)-

pov KaQaplv uyayuv rb Krrjvos, /caAe'ei

rbv debit.

Idem, Euterpe, c. 39. de JEgyptiatis,
'Ayay6vres rb crearnJLa.ffp.4vov KTTJVOS

irpbs rbv ftcafjibv, '6itov kv Oviacn, irvprfV

KaiovGi' eireira Se eif avrov dlvov Kara.

rov Iprfiov eTriffirefffavres, /col eTn/caAe-

aavres rbv 6ebv, (rtydfyvcrt.

Idem, Melpomene, c. 60. de Sci/this,
niirroi'ros Se rov ipifiov, e'Tri/caAe'et

rbv debit, T$ ov 6vr)' Kv.l eVen-a — airo-

Idem, Euterpe, c. 52.
Trdi/ra

Se ouS'
ovo/j.a firoitvvro ovSevl avriav.

Euripides in Iphigen. in Aulid. de
scribes the sacrificing of that noble
virgin, and, after having set down Achil-
les's prayer at large, adds, ver. 1578.

r'

And after the fatal blow was given,
and the virgin disappeared, and the
bleeding hart was seen in her stead,
and was burnt on the altar, he has
these words, ver. 1603.

Ta Trpoatyop' £v£aff &s rv^oi v6ffrov
<rrpar6s.

Aristophanes, in Pace :

In his mock sacrifice to the goddess
Irene, which is very large and par
ticular, the people were thrice called
on in these words,

'AAA' us rdxiffr' eux^/ue^, eux^e-
cr0o 8^.— [v. 973. Ed. Dii dorf.
Oxon. 1835.]

The prayer follows, and contains about
forty verses, and in the prayer these
words,

Af(nroiva xop&v, Sfffirotva yd^uv

Ae'£o{ Qvviav r^v rj/jLtrfpav.

Ae'|ai STJT', & -jro\vr ifJ.-f)rr), K. r. A.. —

[w. 976—978.]

After the prayer, the sacrifice is or
dered to be slain in the words imme
diately following,

Virgil. ^Eneid. iv. ver. 510. in Dido's
sacrifice,

- crines effusa sacerdos
Ter centum tonat ore Deos, Ere-

bumque, Chaosque,
Tergeminamque Hecaten, &c.
Idem, Georg. ii. ver. 388.

Ergo rite suum Baccho dicemus

honorem,
Carminibus patriis, lancesque et

liba fere in us ;
Et ductus cornu stabit sacer hircus

ad aram.

Ovid,Metamoiph.,lib. vii. ver. 593, de
scribing a plague,

Admoti quoties templis, dum vota

sacerdos
Concipit, et fundit purum inter cor-

nua vinurn,
Haud exspectato ceciderunt vulnere

tauri !

Idem, lib. xv. ver. 130, in his Apology
for Pythagoras,

Victima labe carens, et praestantis-

sima forma
(Nam placuisse nocet) vittis prae-

signis et auro,
Sistitur ante aras ; auditque ignara

precantem,
Imponique suae videt inter cornua

fronti,

Quas coluit fruges --
Pliny, in his Natural History, lib.
xxviii. c. 2.

Victim as caedi sine precatione non
videtur refcrre, neque Deos rite con-
suli — Et mox

Ne quid verborum praetereatur, aut
praeposterum dicatur, de scripto praeire
aliquem, rursusque alium custodem
dari qui attendat; alium vero praeponi,
qui faveri linguis jubeat.

Juvenal, Sat. vi. ver. 391. [Ed. Lond.
1835.]

- dictataque verba
Pertulit, ut mos est, et aperta pal-

luit agna.
Seneca, in Thyeste,

Ipse est sacerdos, ipse funesta prece
Letale carmen ore violento canit,
Stat ipse ad aras, ipse devotos neci
Contrectat, et componit, et ferro ad-

movet.— [vv. 689—692. in Corp.

Poett. Latinorum.]

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 113

offered their sacrifice by prayer, but that they did it just SECT,
before the sacrifice was slain ; and that they thought these -
prayers necessary to make a sacrifice ; that they had set forms
of prayer, by which to perform this solemn devotion ; and
that great care was used, lest any mistake should be com
mitted in rehearsing of them. If any man be disposed to
think, that this manner of sacrifice prevailed by virtue of tra
dition rather than by natural reason, I see no occasion to dis
pute the matter with him ; but whether it proceeded from rea
son or tradition, it is, I suppose, evident, that both Jews and
Gentiles agreed in it.

Now to apply what has been said on this head to the Sacri- Prayer the
fice of Christ. It is certain, that whether He performed the ofoftlring
Oblation on the Cross or in the Eucharist, He did it not sacntlce-
either by sprinkling the Blood, or by burning any part of His
own Body, much less by slaying Himself, or by any other
outward ceremonious action then used by the Jews or Gentiles
in sacrificing ; and it has appeared upon examining the parti
cular rites, that not any of them can be esteemed necessary
to make a sacrifice. And if any man shall fancy that some
one of them is necessary, though he cannot himself tell which,
I shall leave him to enjoy his own airy thoughts ; and only
further observe, that it is very clear that no outward ritual
ceremonious action can in itself be compared to prayer for
true value, and we have the universal consent of all the civi
lized people in offering sacrifice by a direct address of words
and thoughts to God.

Herodotus0 reflects on it as a singularity in the Scythians,
that they did not prayd upon offering their sacrifices ; yet he
expressly tells us, that " they called on the name of that god
to whom they sacrificed," before they slew the beast ; therefore
when he says they did not pray, his meaning must only be,
that they offered no petitions, put up no particular requests,
but left it with the god they worshipped to deal with them
as he thought best. But to make general addresses to God,
and to declare their design of honouring Him by the sacrifice
then presented, has, I conceive, been the general practice of

c Herodot, lib. iv. c. 60, 61. [TTITT- ap£a,ue*/oy, otir tirunrf'uras" Ed. Gais-

TOJ/TOS Se TOV ip-tjtov, eiriKa\(fi rbi/ Qibv lord. Johnson must have read it

T<£ &i/ 6vy.] KaTev^d/ntvos, as several copies have

d [oi/Ve irvp o.va.Ka.vffo.3, oisre /car- it.J

JOHNSON. T

114

CHAP, mankind from the beginning of the world : and in this man-
— ner of offering it all have ever agreed, though as to other rites
there has ever been some diversity. The least that can in jus
tice be said is, that this manner of doing it is in itself most
proper and natural, and has been more universally practised
than any other.

Christ did And what rite or manner of offering the great Oblation
JreafsaSi6- sn°uld the Son of God choose, but that which had been prac
tice- tised by the Patriarchs, which was then in use among all
nations, both Jews and Gentiles ? but that which did not con
sist in ceremony or any external formality, but which was an
address or application of His mind to God the Father ? And
certainly the Psalmist, by a prophetic spirit, gave us a very just
account of Christ's performing His Priestly office, when he re
presents the Messiah's offering Himself (as St. Paul intimates)
Heb. x. 5. in these words, " Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings,
6.' ; s L ' and sacrifice for sin, such as are offered by the Law, Thou
wiliest/' or choosest " not, nor hast pleasure therein ; but a
Body hast Thou prepared Me : Lo, I come to do Thy will, O
God," or rather, " Ie come to offer the delightful thing," which
is, the prepared Body, just before mentioned. At another place,
the same Apostle says of Christ, that " byf the Eternal Spirit
He offered Himself to God for us/' By this it is very evident,
that He performed the Oblation by lifting up His mind to
God. Our Saviour in the institution of the Eucharist tells
us, that His Body was then " given" for us ; by what action
He does not there particularly inform us ; but the Apostle
tells us that it was by " the Eternal Spirit," and therefore by
a direct address to God. Isaiah tells us, that " Christ's soul
made an offering for sing;" in which words it is implied, that
He offered the Sacrifice of Himself by an internal act of His

e See Part I. p. [179.] and [207.] are described and made visible to them,

f Heb.ix,14. There is indeed another not by setting before their eyes the

signification of this phrase, very consis- things themselves, but the pictures,

tent with the former, and which ought landscapes, or emblems of them. Ezek.

not here to be omitted ; I mean, a thing xi. 24 ; Rev. i. 10. For the same reason

may be said to be done 'in,' or ' by the Christ may be said to have offered His

Spirit,' when it is clearly represented Body and Blood 'in,' or 'by the spirit,'

to the view, not in natural substance, because He did it under the represen-

but by image or faithful representa- tative symbols of Bread and Wine,

tion. Thus (Acts xx. 22,) "St. Paul g Isa. liii. 10. See the margin of the

went bound in spirit to Jerusalem ;" English Bible, and the critics on the

and Ezekiel and St. John are said to be place.
" in the spirit," when things to come

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 115

mind. Whether our Saviour did openly pronounce the words SECT.
of His mind, by which He offered His Body and Blood a -
Sacrifice for the sins of the world, we must be content to re
main ignorant. He lets us know when He performed this
most solemn and important action ; and that was upon His
instituting the Eucharist, when He blessed the Bread, and
just before He said, " This is My Body given for you •" when
He blessed the Cup, and said, " This is My Blood shed for
you." And we have no reason to doubt but the Apostles did
clearly discern the very precise instant of time, when He
actually celebrated this MOST SOLEMN OBLATION of His Body
and Blood ; for it can scarce be supposed but that the most
momentous action, which He ever performed on earth, must
have been attended with some outward expressions of a most
exalted inward devotion ; if not also with audible words, con
taining a direct address to God the Father, and a declaration
of His offering up His Body and Blood to Him. It is, I
suppose, very evident, that Christ, as a Priest, used no other
rite in making the Oblation of His Body and Blood. He
must indeed have broken the Bread and poured out the
Wine; but I am not aware that these were necessary to
make the Sacrifice, but only actions proper to signify the
crucifixion of His Body and the shedding of His Blood. He
offered the Sacrifice by the Eternal Spirit, the Third Person
of the Holy Trinity, Which always concurred with Him in all
the most remarkable actions of His life; and, I suppose, it
is not conceivable, how the Spirit of God should otherwise
concur with Him in offering Himself to God, than by raising
His human zeal and devotion to the highest pitch, and infus
ing a secret joy and comfort into His mind, while He was
engaged in this most important act of our redemption.

And Christian Priests are to offer the Eucharist, as Christ We are to
did. This is what needs no proof; not indeed with an inten- Eucharist

tion, that His natural Body should again be given up to
death, which was His intention, when He offered the Bread nounced.
and Wine as the symbols of His Body and Blood ; but that
we may offer our thanks to God for the benefits we receive
from that Sacrifice, and that we may have those benefits
applied to our souls. But though the ends of our offering
are not in all respects the same, which Christ proposed to

116 NO RITE BUT PRAYER,

CHAP. Himself, when He first offered this Sacrifice; yet the manner
- or rite, whereby it is offered, does not at all differ from that
used by Christ. To offer the Bread and Wine as the repre
sentatives of His Body and Blood by a prayer or a direct
address to God the Father, has been the constant practice of
the Christian Church. To which purpose I will only present
my reader with the prayer, which was used in the most ancient
Liturgy now in being, and by which the primitive Church
performed this most holy ministration.

The Prayer immediately following the Words of Institution in
the most ancient Liturgy now extant.

" Wherefore, remembering Christ's Passion, and Death, and
Resurrection from the dead, and return into heaven, and His
second coming with glory and great power to judge the quick
and dead and to recompense every man according to his
works, we offer to Thee, our King and our God, according
to His appointment, this Bread and this Cup ; giving Thee
thanks through Him, that Thou hast vouchsafed us to stand
before Thee, and to sacrifice to Thee. And we beseech Thee
to look favourably on these Thy gifts, which are here set
before Thee, O Thou Self-sufficient God : and do Thou accept
them to the honour of Thy Christ, and send down Thine Holy
Spirit, the witness of the Lord Jesus His Passion, that He
may make this Bread the Body of Thy Christ, and this Cup
the Blood of Thy Christ ; that they who are partakers thereof
may be confirmed in godliness, may obtain remission of their
sins, may be delivered from the devil and his snares, may be
replenished with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of
Thy Christ, may obtain everlasting life, Thou being recon
ciled to them, O Lord Almighty."

And all the other old Liturgies have words to the same
effect. By which it appears, that as Christ first offered the
Bread and Wine as His Sacramental Body and Blood by prayer,
so did the Church in the following ages. And though it does
not certainly appear from Scripture, that Christ prayed upon
this occasion with an audible voice ; yet it is highly requisite,
that His Ministers should pronounce the prayer in which the
oblation is made, so as to be heard by the congregation : for

NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 117

though men might safely depend on the silent inward prayers SECT.

of our great High-Priest ; yet they cannot so entirely rely — -

upon the secret unheard devotion of a mere human Priest or
Minister. And, indeed, this were much the same thing as to
depend upon his intention, as the people are taught to do in
the Church of Rome ; and for which that Church is justly
condemned by all good and wise men.

I suppose it will be easily granted, that prayer is in itself This best
more excellent than any mere external rite, such as cutting ture of the"
the throat of an animal, sprinkling its blood, or burning uc anst'
flesh, corn, or bread in the fire, or waving it toward the several
points of the compass. Prayer is the most noble service that
a man is capable of rendering to God by any power of his
own : there is nothing here below which excels it, but the
Sacrifice which is offered by it in the Eucharist. This is
indeed infinitely more worthy and acceptable, as being the
Body and Blood of Christ in power and effect, though not in
substance ; and prayer, being the most valuable action that
we can do, is therefore the most proper manner of offering
the most worthy Sacrifice that can be presented to God by
mere men. Prayer is an exercise of our souls, which are by
much the more honourable and perfect parts of us, and by
our tongues, which are " the best members that we have ;"
and is therefore a much more agreeable means of making the
Oblation in the Eucharist, than the blood and fire and smoke,
with which the sacrifices of the Jews and heathens were
offered and consumed. The Eucharist is a spiritual Sacri
fice, and therefore the offering it by prayer does best comport
with its nature.

CHAP. II.

OF THE GREAT MOMENT AND NECESSITY OF THE EUCHARIST,
I. IN GENERAL. II. AS IT IS A SACRIFICE.

SECT. I.

Of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist
in general.

When I speak of the great moment and necessity of the
Eucharist in general ; I mean, as it is

1. A positive institution of Christ;

2. As it is the principal and most proper worship of the
Christian Church, and a constant commemoration of His
Death ;

3. As it is a means of covenanting and communicating
with God and each other.

The Eucha- THE great moment and necessity of the Eucharist appears
raisfasti- fr°m this, that it is a positive institution of Christ. And

tutionof this is what no Christian will, I presume, dispute with me.
Christ Himself hath said, "Take, eat," and " Drink ye all of
this ;" and " do" or offer " this in remembrance of Me." And

i Cor. xi. St. Paul, if not Christ, hath charged us thus " to shew forth
the Lord's Death till He come." The reasonings of men have
often lessened the force of Divine laws. For the first hundred
years after the Reformation, so great a stress was laid on
faith and hearing sermons, that all practical religion and
external ordinances were in danger of being swallowed up in
these two duties. Since that, the moral precepts of religion
have been greatly magnified; but, I fear, some great men
have much to answer for, in that they have extolled, first
faith, and then obedience, or both of them together, in pre
judice to this Holy Institution of the Eucharist, (to say no-

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS AN INSTITUTION, &C. 119

thing now of the other Sacrament). The primitive Christians SECT,
thought they exercised their faith by their frequent receiv- —
ing the Eucharist ; and to be ' one of the faithful' and ' a com
municant' was, in their language, one and the same thing.
In the Communion they exercised their charity both in giving
and forgiving ; in this ordinance they professed their inno
cence and sincerity in all parts of their duty, and their
resolution of obedience for the future. If they had com
mitted any gross sin, they were separated for a season from
the Lord's Table ; and when they were admitted to it again,
they believed that they there received the full and perfect
remission of their sins : so that the exercise of their faith
and obedience and repentance did all tend toward the Eucha-
"rist, and at last centre in it.

One great aim of some modern Divines has been to extol Though it
and heighten the value of those duties, which they call duties eternal
of eternal obligation, such as the love of God and our neigh- necessary a
bour, sobriety, piety, and the like ; and, on the other side, to one-
lessen and depress such as concern the men of some ages
only, such as Circumcision and the Passover and the seventh-
day Sabbath, which were enjoined only to the Jews; and
Baptism and the Eucharist, which were not in force until since
Christ Jesus came into the world. But I am of opinion that,
if we impartially search the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
we shall find that Circumcision, the Passover, and Sabbath,
were duties which God bound upon the consciences of the
Jews with as much care and force as even the greatest moral
duties ; and if Baptism and the Eucharist are as necessary
to Christians as Circumcision and other external ordinances
were to the Jews, we shall see no cause to think them of
lesser obligation than the greatest matters of the Gospel.
In truth, there are many articles of the Christian Faith, which
were not necessary to be believed before Christ came into
the world, as that Jesus was the Son of God, and Very God ;
that He shall judge the quick and dead, &c., which were not
necessary before our Saviour made them so ; and yet this does
not at all abate or lessen the necessity of our believing them :
nor is the Eucharist less necessary to be practised by us, be
cause it was a thing not required of the Father before our Savi
our's incarnation and death. It is true, that all duties, which

120 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, cannot be performed without the help of other things or per-

— sons, cannot be so necessary as that a man shall eternally suffer

for not doing them, when the reason why he does them not
is, that he is destitute of those outward means, without which
it is impossible to do them. To join in the public worship of
the Church, and to give alms to others, and to hear or read
God's Word, are certainly very necessary duties ; and he who
wilfully omits any of them must expect to be treated by God as
a transgressor; nothing can excuse him but the want of out
ward means; and the same may be said of the Eucharist.
And, in such cases, it is not any want of value in the duties
themselves, but the impossibility of the performing them, that
will excuse us. We are as much obliged to practise these
duties as any other, and the neglect of them renders Chris-'
tians liable to punishment, as well as the neglect of any other
known duty ; but no man is obliged to an impossibility.
The great I have elsewhere h shewed at large, that our Saviour's dis-
our Saviour course in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel was by Him
dYt^°JohnS meant of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood in the
vi- Eucharist; and that therefore, when He says, " Except ye eat

' the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have
no life in you," He makes the receiving of this Sacrament
necessary to all who are capable of receiving it. It is true,
none do, spiritually and to their own benefit, eat the Flesh of
Christ, but they who receive It with faith and love and thank
fulness and other holy dispositions, and especially with a sin
cere resolution of living in all respects as becomes the Gospel
of Christ ; and therefore, when Christ does so expressly re
quire His disciples to eat His Flesh, He at the same time
requires us to clothe ourselves with all those virtues and
graces, which are necessary to this end. Therefore it is not
a mere outward formality, upon which our Saviour there doth
so earnestly insist, but eating and drinking the outward sym
bols with that preparation and devotion of mind, which befits
so solemn and Divine an institution ; and since our Saviour
has laid so great a stress on this duty, when performed in a
proper manner, it certainly becomes all humble Christians to
submit their judgment to His.

The primitive Christians and ancient Fathers of the Church

h See Part I. p. [457,] &c.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 121

did not only believe the Eucharist to be very necessary to be SECT,
received by all that are members of Christ's Church ; but -
they grounded their judgment upon our Saviour's discourse
in John vi., as I have formerly proved at large1. I shall not
repeat what I have there said, but conclude this head with
the words of St. Chrysostomk, "As to come to the Eucharist
rashly is dangerous ; so not to partake of It is death and
famine."

II. The moment and necessity of the Eucharist will appear, TheEucha-
if it be considered as the principal and most proper worship public! prd^
of Christ's Church, and the constant commemoration of His [f^^JJJT
Death. I put these two together as one and the same thing, ship, and
viz., the principal and most proper worship of the Christian Christ's
Church, and the constant commemoration of Christ's death :
for it does not appear to me, that Christ did ever ordain any
public worship for His disciples, but the Communion or
Eucharist only. Prayer is a duty of natural religion. Christ
is so far from being the first author of this sort of worship,
that I suppose it was used by all men that ever pretended to
religion. When Christ promises, that " if two agree upon Matt, xviii.
earth as touching anything they shall ask, it shall be done '
for them," and speaks of " two or three, gathered together in
His Name;" it is evident, that the whole discourse was di
rected to the Apostles only1, and in those words He confers a
privilege on them in matters relating to discipline and govern
ment. The promise there given of being " in the midst of
them" is an assurance of His confirming what they should
determine in things relating to the peace of the Church ; and
this promise was not intended to be fulfilled, until Christ had
"sanctified Himself m," or offered His Body and Blood in the
Eucharist, and thereby " sanctified" or consecrated "them" to
the Gospel-Priesthood, as Moses did Aaron by offering Leviti- Lev. \m. 9.
cal sacrifices : indeed, if we will speak strictly, then only we
ask a thing in the name of Christ when we pray to God for it
in the Communion-service. To this purpose the words of our

1 See Part I. p. [488] — [500.] whom He spoke, Matt, xviii, and the

k N. p. 42. Ap. only persons concerned in this whole

1 Compare Matt, xviii. ]. with Mark discourse.

ix. 35. In this last text it is said, m See John xvii. 17 — 19, and the

Jesus called unto Him "the twelve;" Introduction to this Second Part,
therefore these are the "disciples," to

122

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP.
II.

John xvi.
24.

John xvi.
23.

John xvi.
25.

John xvi.
29.

John xvi.
16. 22.

Saviour deserve our consideration, which He spake upon His
first instituting the Eucharist", " Hitherto you have asked
nothing in My Name ; ask, and ye shall receive." Our Savi
our had never before instructed them, how they were to pray
" in His Name ;" but now, when He instituted the Eucharist,
He informs them, that the addresses made to God in that or
dinance of His own founding should be favourably accepted,
as being offered in a way authorized and established by Him.
"Verily, I say unto you, whatever ye shall ask the Father in
My Name, He will give it you." And, indeed, it is reasonable
to believe, that the Apostles did never make their solemn ad
dresses to God, when two or three or more of them assembled
together upon any Church-business, save in and by the Eucha
rist, after our Saviour's Death and Ascension, and the descent
of the Holy Spirit. Our Saviour Himself observes to them,
that notwithstanding the assurance He had given them, that
when any two of them agreed in any matter they should ask,
when they were met in His Name, it should be done unto them;
yet " hitherto they had asked nothing in His Name ;" and He
hints the reason of this in those words, " These things have
I" formerly " spoken to you in parables," in a more dark, ob
scure manner; "the time cometh, when I shall no more speak
to you in parables, but shall shew you plainly of the Father."
And what He was to shew them of the Father was His readi
ness to hear them, when they should pray in His Name ; and
this appears by the next words, " At that day ye shall ask in
My Name," &c. And hereupon the Apostles acknowledge
themselves fully satisfied in this point; for they say, "Lo,
now speakest Thou plainly, and speakest no parable." Now
that they had heard our Saviour explain Himself concerning
praying in His Name, which He had formerly spoken of more
darkly and concisely, and seen Him administer the holy
Sacrament, they thought themselves fully informed in this
point ; and, therefore, to pray in Christ's Name is to offer
up prayers in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, as the learned
Mr. Mede has long ago observed. And whereas He says,
" In that day ye shall ask in My Name ;" by " that day" He
means after His ascension into heaven and sending of the
Holy Ghost, when He " went to His Father," when " their

" See the Introduction.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 123

heart should rejoice." For it is very improbable, to suppose SECT.
that the Apostles should commemorate this Sacrifice of Christ -
in the Eucharist, before the Sacrifice itself was fully com
pleted ; and this could not be, until He had entered into the
Most Holy Place with His own Blood, and had given a proof
of His Sacrifice being accepted, by sending down the Holy
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, as a signal from heaven, to
let them know that their Master was exalted to God's right
hand. It is very evident, that Christ Himself offered up the
most earnest and momentous prayers for His Apostles and John xvii.
for all believers, in that very prayer which He offered at His
first administration of the Sacrament ; for it cannot in reason
be doubted but that the whole seventeenth chapter of St.
John's Gospel was a prayer used by Him in the institution
of the Eucharist, though it must be confessed it is not easy
to determine to which parts of the holy action every single
clause of that most excellent prayer belongs; and if this
could certainly be determined, it would give us better light
to the more complete knowledge of this Divine mystery. But,
I conceive, we know enough to determine us in this doctrine,
namely, that Christ instituted no public worship but the
Eucharist, and that to pray to the Father in His Name is to
make our addresses to God in and by the commemoration of
His Death.

It is very probable, that the most primitive Church knew The most
no other constant stated Christian worship but that of the church °
Communion. We are assured that the Apostles and new con- 6

verts " continued daily in the temple, breaking Bread0 near stantprin-
the sanctuary." The preaching or "doctrine" of the Apostles, ship.
the "fellowship" or contributions toward the relief of the poor, Actsu- 42-
and the "prayers" which are mentioned together with the
breaking of Bread four verses before, were only looked upon
as proper, if not necessary, attendants on the Eucharist, and
do still make part of our own Communion-service. We are
told, that the disciples of Troas " came together on the first Acts xx. 7.

0 I render KOT' oinov ' near the sane- that St. Luke means the upper room,

tuary,' or the priests' apartment in the in which Christ eat the Passover, in-

temple ; so it evidently signifies, Luke stituted the Eucharist, and appeared to

xi. 51, where Barachias is said to have the Apostles after the resurrection: of

"perished between the temple," the which see Mede's Discourse on 1 Cor.

O!KOS, the sanctuary or priest's apart- xi. 22.
ment, " and the altar." It is prohahle

124 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, day of the week TO EAT BREAD ;" this was the principal end of
— that assembly. And St. Paul, speaking of the Christian con
gregation at Corinth, uses the phrase of "coming together P"
or "coming together in the church," in the same sense as
" coming together to eat ;" which implies that this was their
principal business when they met. " To come together not
for the better but for the worse," and " to come together for
condemnation^" is the same thing with "eating this Bread and
drinking this Cup unworthily;" which is a fair intimation, that
' coming together ' and t eating' were then inseparable things.
It is indeed probable, as I before hinted, that the Sacrifice
of the Eucharist was never offered by the Apostles, until they
knew the principal Sacrifice of Christ's Body had been finished
by Christ's appearing in heaven, and giving the signal of it
by sending down the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost :
therefore the hundred and twenty, before the descent of the
Spirit, " continued in prayer and supplication1"," without any
mention of the Eucharist. It is true, prayer sometimes im
plies the Eucharist, as I have elsewhere shewed8; but if you
take it in its usual sense, it only proves that the Church did
not make the Communion their constant stated worship, be
fore the day of Pentecost.

A daily It seems probable, that there was a daily Eucharist, at

during the least during the Apostolical age; for1 St. Clement of Rome"
Apostolical mentions the "continual Sacrifices" in a place, where he is
undoubtedly speaking of the Eucharist under the type of the
Levitical sacrifices. And it is evident, that this practice con
tinued till the time of Cyprian x, who speaks of the Sacra
ment as daily administered and received. And it is well
known that several of the Fathers did, by " daily bread" in
the Lord's Prayer, understand the Eucharist ; and it is very
unreasonable to suppose, that their doctrine was contrary
to their practice, as it must have been, if they did not daily
receive it. It is true, they did not charge it as a necessary
duty on all laymen to attend at the Altar every day of the

P 1 Cor. xi. 33. Compare ver. 17, deleted by Dr. Mill, by the authority

18, with ver. 33. of three versions, four Fathers, and

•» Compare ver. 17, 34, with ver. 27, three MSS. beside the Alexandrian.

29. • See Parti, p. [363.]

* Acts i. 14. N.B. vpoerevxh may t ibid., p. [152,] &c.

here signify the ' upper room,' where u b. p. 1. Ap. 1. 16.

they were met, and the word SeVet is x g, 1. p. 11, 12. Ap.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 125

week ; but therefore they did, in some Churches at least, permit SECT.
them who lived at a distance from the place of assembly, to —
carry home with them so much of the Sacrament as might
suffice for several days following, as appears from some places
in Tertulliany, and long after him from St. Basil2.

I see no reason to believe, that there was in the primitive No public
Church of the first two hundred years any Common-Prayer or
public devotions for the faithful people, but in the Eucharist
only. Justin Martyr, indeed, mentions prayers between the Eucharist.
sermon and the Eucharist ; but it is pretty plain that he
means those prayers, which were offered in behalf of the
penitents and catechumens, which are well known to have
been used just at this juncture. The people did indeed keep
Wednesdays and Fridays as station-days, and the more devout
part of them did certainly meet together in the Church, and
there put up their prayers to God; and by what Tertulliana
says it is evident that the people were under no strict obliga
tion to join in the Communion-service on these days, though
it is evident that the Communion was then usually cele
brated. But the prayers then used by the people before the
Eucharist were not public open prayers, pronounced aloud,
and offered with the united consent of the whole congrega
tion; but they were private devotions b, left to the discretion
of every single person, and for such favours and mercies
as he himself most needed, or which he thought most
necessary for others or for the public : and though very
many did not join in the Eucharist, yet Tertullian justly
reprehends them on this account. There are indeed public0
Prayers for the evening and morning in the Apostolical Con
stitutions, and the Bishop is required to hold constant
assemblies for prayer twice a day. The Synod of Laodicea
in the fourth century mentions prayers made publicly in the
church at three and six in the afternoon. But in the age of
Ignatius it was not so; for hed speaks of the Eucharist and
Prayers of the Church as inseparable things. The heretics

y i. p. 8. Ap. See also Part i. p. rant, nisi quod proximis obstrepunt '.'

[343.] Immo prodendo petitiones suas, quid

1 d. p. 23. Ap. minus faciunt quam si in publico

* i. p. 8. Ap. orcnt?

b Tertull. De Orat., c. 13. Quid c Ap. Const., lib. ii. c. 59.

amplius referent isti qui clarius ado- d h. p. 2. Ap.

126 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, who abstained from the Eucharist, did by that means deprive

— themselves of the prayers too.
AH of old However, what is more certain is, that the Eucharist was

obliged to .

receive the constant stated worship of the solemn assembly on every
Lonfs day. Lord's day ; and, I suppose, there is not one single proof, that
the Eucharist was ever designedly omitted in any Christian
assembly on this day, for many hundred years after Christ.
Justin Martyr describes the Christian worship in this manner ;
that " on the day called Sunday all both in city and country
meet together; and after the Scriptures read, the sermon,
and some prayers, Bread and Wine mixed with water is
offered to the Bishop ;" and so he proceeds to give an
account of the celebration of the Eucharist. Pliny, in his
letter to the Emperor Trajan, gives this account of the
Christians ; that on an appointed day they met together and
said alternately a set form of words ; and took a Sacrament
not to commit any villainy, not to rob, steal, &c. And for any
one of the faithful to come to church on the Lord's day, and
not to receive the Eucharist, was a thing unknown in the
first ages. Justin Martyr assures us, that it was distributed
to all that were present, and sent to all that were absent;
all Clergymen and faithful laymen, that came to church, but
did not partake of the Communion, had a censure passed
against them by the most ancient6 canons that are in
being.

They, who There were in the primitive Church three ranks of lay-
cewVbut men. First, the Catechumens, who had taken a liking to
do not, are Christianity and attended the sermons and reading of the

a new sort J

of Chris- Scriptures, but, being born of Jewish or heathen parents,

not truly had not yet been baptized. The second consisted of Penitents

worship-11 wno na^ been baptized and admitted to the Communion, but

pers. afterwards had been guilty of some great sin, and were on

that account driven from the Lord's Table for a time, and

not permitted to sit or stand in the same part of the church

with the faithful, but near the catechumens in an apartment

toward the doors of the church ; both these ranks of laymen

were dismissed as soon as the sermon was ended, before the

Eucharistical service began. The third and principal rank

was that of the Faithful ; these alone were permitted to come

e Can. A post. 9. See p. 48. Ap.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 127

to the holy Communion, and in these it was a fault to stay SECT,
away : and if any such person wilfully absented himself from -
church on the Lord's day, or if he came but turned his back
on the Lord's Table, he was for a time shut out from all
communion with the faithful ; he was turned down into the
rank of penitents, until he had sufficiently deplored and pro
mised to amend his fault. From which it appears, that there
was in the primitive Church no such sort of persons allowed,
as might communicate but did not ; we have now, indeed,
such a rank of laymen as are capable of communicating arid
are frequently invited to it, but yet live in a neglect or con
tempt of this holy ordinance; they are indeed exceeding
numerous; no such men were permitted to have a place
among the faithful in the primitive Church. But now-a-
days too many affect that which was accounted the greatest
punishment in the best times of Christianity ; I mean, to
continue many years together and perhaps their whole life
time in a total abstinence from the holy Sacrament. And
by this means it is very evident that they deprive them
selves of the privilege of Christian worship ; for I suppose it
is clearly proved, that the Eucharist is the proper peculiar
worship of the Christian Church. Prayer is a duty of Natural
Religion, and not peculiar to Christians. To pray in the
Name of Christ is that manner of praying, which distin
guishes the devotions of Christ's disciples from those of
other men ; and then only we pray properly and strictly in
the Name of Christ, when we offer up our prayers in and
by the Eucharist.

And it will, I presume, be easily granted, that the com-Thecom-

,. c o • 5 TV .LI c ' memoration

memoration 01 our baviour s Death was tor very just reasons Of Christ's
made the most proper and principal worship of the Christian seraslTbe
Church. As the Death of Christ was the most wonderful and the princi:

pal worship

beneficial thing that ever happened; so it deserves to be the of His
chief subject of our praises to God : and praise offered in a
proper manner is justly esteemed the most excellent, rational
part of Divine worship. The greatest honour that we can do to
God the Father is, to acknowledge Him to be the source and
origin of the Divine Son, that He sent Him into the world
to be our Saviour and accepted the Sacrifice offered by Him
for the sins of men ; and to do this is the first end of the

128 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. Christian Eucharist. Our Saviour, therefore, by making

'- — this ordinance the most proper principal worship of His

people, intended the most signal and high honour to be done
to His Heavenly Father ; for I have proved and shall suffici
ently prove, that it is our business in the Eucharist to ' ' shew f
forth" Christ's Death, first and principally to God, and in
the next place to each other. And further, it does and will
appear, that another intention of our Saviour in the Eucha
rist was, to have His own Death so effectually there com
memorated, that they who duly join in the performing of it
may be partakers of all the blessings, which by His Death
were purchased for all mankind. It is therefore not only
clear in fact, that Christ Jesus did make the commemoration
of His Death the most proper and peculiar worship of His
Church, but it appears from the nature of the Eucharist
itself that it deserves so to be.

Covenant- III. The moment and necessity of the Eucharist in gene-
communi- *al will appear, if it be considered as the means of our cove-
sameg' the nanting and communicating with God and with each other.

I join together ' covenanting' and ' communicating' with
God, because I take them to be one and the same thing. Only
I must give one caution, namely that, when I speak of cove
nanting, I do not mean the first entering into covenant with
God, in order to bring ourselves out of that unhappy state
in which we are by nature ; this is done by Baptism, not by
the Eucharist; but I mean the covenanting of those who are
Heb. x. 22. already baptized Christians. For they who will " draw near
to God"must first have "their bodies washed with pure water;"
and what the Apostle means by ' drawing near to God' will be
easily understood by those, who are already convinced that the
Eucharist is the most proper Christian worship, in which we
therefore make our nearest approaches to the throne of God :
and St. Paul explains his own meaning in the following
words, when he bids us " hold fast the Oblation ofcur faith
without wavering;" for I have elsewhere g made it appear,
that by "the Oblation of our faith" the Eucharist is meant. It
is true, there is no privilege or favour conveyed to us in the

f 'AvcryyeAA.eij' is the word used lation runs, " I profess this day to the
1 Cor. xi. 26; the same word is found Lord thy God."
Dent. xxvi. 3, where our English trans- « See Part I. p. [221.]

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 129

Eucharist, but what we first receive by Baptism; yet we re- SECT.

ceive them in a much less degree in Baptism than in the Eu '-

charist. In the first, we receive the remission of that guilt
which we brought into the world with us, or of that which
we contracted while we were in a state of nature, of Ju
daism, or [of] heathenism ; in the other, we have our pardon
sealed for such sins as we have committed, since we were bap
tized Christians : and the sins of baptized Christians are not
(ordinarily) forgiven, but in the Eucharist. In Baptism or
Confirmation, (which is but a completing of that Sacrament)
we have the first livery and seisin, if I may so say, of all the
favours purchased by Christ ; in the Eucharist, we receive the
continuance and improvement of them. By ' covenanting'
therefore in this place, it is evident, I mean the assurances
that God is pleased to repeat of His favours and blessings to
Christian people; and, on the other side, the assurances of
duty repeated by Christian people toward God. And as
there is no other rite or solemn action, by which baptized
Christians can renew their covenant with God, but this of
the Eucharist; so by thus renewing the covenant, they
maintain a constant communion with God. For what com
munion can we have with God in this life, but that which
consists in a continued flowing of His favour towards us and
of our duty toward Him ? and when I speak of communion
with God, I suppose every one will thereby understand, that
I mean not only with the Divine Father, but with the Son
and Holy Ghost ; for I take it for granted in all my discourse
on this subject, that we cannot have communion with one,
but that we must have communion with all the three Divine
Persons.

Now these assurances of Divine favour are given us, not These pri-
singly or personally, but in our public capacity, as we are personal™
members of that great body, the Christian Church. It was
the Church, which Christ purchased with His Blood, for
which He gave Himself, and which is His flesh and bone; Acts xx.
this is that Body, of which He is the Head and Saviour, and ^'so^v V*
which He fills with His graces and blessings. We are called to 23 » l- 23-
peace, and for that reason we are called in "one Body ;" there- Col. m. 15.
fore the salvation purchased by Christ is a common salvation, Jude 3.
of which we cannot partake, but by uniting with that Body

130

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP.
II.

Eph. v. 27.

In the Eu
charist
only, the
Church
covenants
and com
municates
with God.

1 Cor. x. 17,

of men, to which this privilege was granted. The Church
is that Spouse, whom Christ presents to Himself; and none
can be living members of this Spouse, but they who are
most perfectly united to her, as limbs to the body ; for be
cause there is no covenant or communion among men more
strong or strict than that between a man and his wife,
therefore the holy writers do under this figure represent the
mutual alliance between Christ and His Church. But to
shew us that the union is somewhat greater and more perfect
than that between husband and wife, they do at other times
describe it by the conjunction of the head of a man to his
own body ; and at the same time teach us, that we can re
ceive no benefit from the Head, except we are members of
the Body.

Now he who desires to keep in perfect covenant and com
munion with the mystical Body of Christ, which is His
Church, can do it by no other means but by joining in those
public actions, by which this covenant and communion be
tween the Head and members is continued ; and these actions
are, principally, the Eucharist with its appendages ; for I have
already proved that this is the most proper Christian worship,
and by which therefore the union and correspondence be
tween God and the Church are chiefly preserved and main
tained. Faith and hope are indeed the invisible means, by
which they are brought together, and without which no
member can have true communion either with the Head or
the Body. An unbaptized Christian may have faith and hope
too (in some measure), yet he cannot be said to be in perfect
covenant and communion with God and Christ Jesus and
the Church. A Jew or heathen might of old, and may to
this day, hear our sermons and the reading of the Scriptures ;
but the Eucharist being the proper and peculiar worship of
the Christian Church, none but baptized Christians can join
in it ; and therefore, in this ordinance only, the Church does
perfectly exercise its privilege of covenanting and communi
cating with its Head j there only the members do perfectly
covenant and communicate with each other. Therefore the
Apostle having said that we are all " one Body," he gives this
reason for it, "because we are all partakers of that one loaf."
And if we would know, how we are made 'one' with Christ and

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 131

each other by the Eucharist, our Saviour answers this ques- SECT,
tion in the words of institution, viz., "This is My Blood of —
the New Covenant," as St. Matthew and St. Mark express it; 28 ;" Mark '
or " this Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood h," according XIV< 24<
to St. Luke and St. Paul. The Apostle, last mentioned, does
at another place call " the Bread, the Communion of Christ's 1 Cor. x. 16.
Body, the Cup, the Communion of His Blood." By this he
means, that God doth in this holy Sacrament impart to us
the sum of all blessings and favours, which is the spiritual
Body and Blood of Christ, and that we by receiving them do
devote ourselves to the True God ; and therefore cannot,
without a contradiction to ourselves, "have fellowship with" or
"drink the cup of devils ;" which was the main thing that the
Apostle had in his view in this chapter : and what very evi
dently follows from hence is, that by the Eucharist we do
covenant and communicate with God and with each other.
Nay, Christ solemnly affirms, " He who feedeth on My Flesh, John vi. 26.
and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him;"
where, by "dwelling in him" that duly and frequently re
ceives the Sacrament, He means the most perfect and constant
communion with Him. And there is no intimation in the
New Testament of any means of a baptized Christian's cove
nanting and communicating with God but in the Eucharist
only. By faith and prayer and other acts of religion we do
indeed perform our duty toward God ; but I conceive that
there is no other ordinance of religion but the Sacrament, in
which God does impart anything to His Church. By Baptism
God confers pardon and grace to particular men ; but in the
Eucharist, to Christian bodies and societies. In this He gives
us the Body and Blood of His Son, not indeed in substance,
but in life and power ; and this Body and Blood of Christ do
convey to all wortlyr receivers all the benefits of His Death.
And, upon the whole, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is as
necessary as the covenant between God and man in Christ
Jesus ; it is as necessary, as it is for us to have communion with
God ; for it does not appear that we can renew this covenant or
continue this communion without the use of the Eucharist.

h Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 25. Ata- There is but one place, where it can

OriKij, the word here used, does parti- signify 'a testament,' viz., Heh. ix. 16,

cularly signify 'a covenant,' not only 17.
in sacred, but among profane writers.

K2

132 THE EUCHAHIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. It is certain, that by nature we have no communion with God,
- nor can we have it by any other means but what Christ
John xiv. hath appointed. He Himself hath said, " No man cometh to
16.18. ' ' the Father but by Me;" "a judgment to condemnation is
upon all men," and we are incapable of being relieved from
this state by any other method, but that which Jesus Christ
hath directed. We have no redress but from Him, Who hath
taught us to deliver ourselves from this miserable state by
entering into covenant with God by Baptism, and by renewing
and continuing this covenant by the Eucharist. We cannot
hope to attain eternal happiness by our own natural strength ;
and if so, then it can be done by no other way but by cove
nant ; and if by covenant, then not without the Eucharist, if
it can be had.

But that it may particularly appear how necessary it is to
renew the Christian Covenant by the Eucharist, I will conside r
what is there mutually promised and agreed.

1. On God's part. 2. On our parts.

1. On God's part, there are three very great blessings
assured to all worthy receivers, viz.

(1.) Pardon of past sins; (2.) Grace to amend our
lives ; (3.) Eternal happiness.

Pardon (1.) Pardon of past sins is a most necessary blessing,

Christians and *s the first of those which the Gospel promises to us.

thaiistEu~ Baptism was intended for this purpose, and we are taught in
the best of Creeds to believe " one Baptism for the remission
of sins ;" but our Saviour has provided a remedy for the sins
of His disciples committed after Baptism, and this remedy is
the Eucharist. Christ Himself assures us that the Cup in the

Matt. xxvi. Eucharist is " His Blood shed FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS."

28 *

As the Cup is the covenant, so the first article of the cove
nant is forgiveness of sins. Upon which it is arid ever was
the belief of the most sound and understanding Christians,
that we have our pardon sealed in the Sacrament, if we
receive it with faithful, penitent, and obedient minds. St.
Augustine', speaking of these mysteries, says, " In them is true
remission of sins ;" and, according to St. Ambrose1", " He who

'l f. p. 31. Ap. k a. p. 26. Ap.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 133

receives [the Eucharist] dies not the death of a sinner; for SECT.
this Bread is the remission of sins." The reader will observe

that, in Ambrose's opinion, they that receive unworthily do
not eat the Eucharist; which was likewise OrigenV notion.
Cyprian"1 speaks of "the Cup of the Lord," as "relieving the
sad and sorrowful heart, before oppressed with vexatious sins",
with the joy of Divine forgiveness." The most ancient
Liturgy now in being teaches the Priest to express his ex
pectation0, that they who partake of the Eucharist "may
obtain remission of their sins :" and there are many passages
to the same purpose in all the ancient Liturgies. The
Papists, indeed, have for some hundred years past been
obscuring this truth, by obliging men to receive from the
Priest a full and peremptory absolution from their sins, before
they permit them to receive the holy Sacrament of the Eu
charist ; but it does not appear that any such absolutions
were used in the primitive Church, nor was there any other
form of finally remitting the sins of penitents but by ad
mitting them to the Eucharist. The Bishop p or Priest did,
indeed, lay their hands on penitents, and pray that God
would pardon them; but they were not esteemed to be
perfectly absolved until they had received the Sacrament.

(2.) Another article of the covenant, on God's part, is grace Grace as-
to amend our lives. St. Paul, beyond all question, alludes g|™n ^
to the Sacrament ; when, speaking - of Christians, he says, *® Eucha-
" We have all been made to drink into the same Spirit." Our i Cor. xii.

1 Q

blessed Saviour, after He had discoursed at large concerning
the eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, gives His
disciples to understand, that He did not thereby mean any
material thing wholly destitute of inward power ; for " the John vi. 63.
words which I speak," or, the promises which I make, " they
are spirit, and they are life;" which was by the primitive Church
believed to be an assurance of grace and the Divine Spirit to
be communicated to all worthy receivers of the holy Sacra
ment. " We approach the mystical Eulogies" says Cyril of
Alexandria q, " and are sanctified by being partakers of the

1 See Part I. p. [473,] &c. ° cap. 52, 53. 1. 41. Ap.

111 m. 7. p. 13. Ap. P See Euscb. Hist. Eccl., lib. vi.

n [Johnson read angentibtu ; the c. 44.

Benedictine text, used in the Appen- 1 1. p. 44. Ap.
dix, has o,ugentibu8.~\

134 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. Holy Flesh and precious Blood of Christ." Theodoret says1,
- " Christ does not change the nature" of the Bread and Wine,
" but adds grace to nature." Chrysostom speaks of a prayer
in the Communion- service in his time8, "that Divine grace
lighting upon the Sacrifice" (that is, the Bread and Wine)
" might, by that Sacrifice, inflame the hearts of all." Gau-
dentius says of this Sacrament4, "It refreshes and sanctifies
even them who consecrate it ;" and" he calls it " a sweet medi
cine, a perpetual security against the poison of the devil."
Cyril of Jerusalem x says, "The Eucharist is distributed
through our whole system to the profit both of body and
soul :" andy, " In the New Covenant, the heavenly Bread and
the Cup of salvation sanctify both the soul and body ; and as
the Bread is fit for the body, so is the Word agreeable to the
soul." Firmicus asserts, that2 "It relieves them that languish,
reclaims them who go astray, raises up those that are fallen :"
Origen3, that " It sanctifies them who use it with a wholesome
purpose;" and b that "It is profitable in proportion to our faith,
and is a means of illuminating our minds." St. Cyprian0
speaks of " fortifying the souls of Martyrs by the protection
of the Body and Blood of Christ ;" and by this he means
administering the Eucharist to them, and supposes that it
was intended to be <fa safe-guard and protection to them
who received it :" and he saysd, " The Cup of the Lord does so
cheer those who drink it, as to make them sober, and reduce
their minds to spiritual wisdom." Clement of Alexandria6
affirms, that they who " partake of the Eucharist with faith
are sanctified both in body and soul." Tertullian expresses
his opinion to the same purpose, when he saysf, " The body
is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul may
be replenished with God;" by 'God' meaning the Holy Spirit.
So the most ancient Liturgy & prays for the descent of the
Holy Ghost on the Bread and Wine, that the receivers " may
be filled with that Holy Spirit, and become worthy of
Christ."

i. p. 40. Ap. a a. p. 9. Ap.

h. p. 38. Ap. h f. p. 10. Ap.

a. p. 30. Ap. c 1. p. 12. Ap.

c. p. 30. Ap. «i m. 7. p. 13. Ap.
h. p. 19. Ap. e b. p. 7. Ap.

d. p. 19. Ap. f m. p. 8. Ap.

p. 18. Ap. s c. p. 53. 1. 42. Ap.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 135

(3.) A third thing promised, on God's part, in the Gospel- SECT,
covenant and the Eucharist is eternal happiness. Our -j^Eucha^
Saviour does very much inculcate this doctrine. He repeats rist> an as-

surance of

it five or six times one after another, that " He who feedethh a happy
on this Bread shall live for ever •" not indeed always in the ticn!™
same words, but to the same sense : and, on the other side, Joj™ vi- 48
He never did, in more express and solemn words, pronounce
a sentence of condemnation against any sort of men than
against those who neglect this holy food ; " Amen, Amen, I
say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His Blood, ye have no life in you/' Nor are we to
wonder, if Christ made something else, besides faith and
obedience to the Moral Law, necessary to eternal salvation.
Man, even in Paradise, had a positive law given him, over
and above the laws of nature and reason, namely, " that he
should not eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil ;"
nay, if he had persisted in his obedience to this and all other
laws, yet he could not by this means have attained eternal
happiness, if he had not eat of the tree of life. If Man, by
living in a constant course of obedience, without the use of
any other means, might have secured to himself eternal life,
this might have given him occasion to attribute his immor
tality to the virtue and power of his own righteousness and
obedience ; but, by making the use of the fruit of the tree
of life necessary to render him immortal, God gave to Man a
demonstration, that eternal life and perfect obedience are two
things that have no necessary dependence on each other.
For the same reason, He hath required Christians not only
to believe and obey in other respects ; but, in order to secure
ourselves a happy resurrection, He directs us to feed on the
Bread of Life, the holy Eucharist : for, by making this a
necessary condition without which we cannot attain immortal
happiness, He gives us a demonstration, that eternal life is the
gift of God, and not the wages of our righteousness or obe
dience. When therefore our Saviour says, "He that be- John vi. 47.
lieveth 011 Me hath everlasting life," the meaning is not,
that faith alone is sufficient to salvation; but, that a true
believer, by being a member of Christ's Church and enjoying
the Eucharist, has the means of eternal life provided for him

h See Part I. p. [530.]

136 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, by Christ Jesus, as Adam, by living in Paradise and having
the fruit of the tree of life within his reach, might be said

too to have eternal life. And it is very observable, how
unanimous the ancient writers of the Church are, not only in
asserting that this Sacrament is necessary to salvation, but,
that it is a means, by which our bodies have a principle of a
happy resurrection conveyed to them. This I look upon as
a doctrine of very considerable moment, and to which our
Saviour gives very great countenance in His whole discourse
on this subject in John vi., but especially in those very ob-
john vi. 54, servable words, "Whoso feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh
My Blood his drink, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up
at the last day : for My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood
is drink indeed." Here our Saviour seems to magnify the
excellence of the Sacramental meat and drink, and to ascribe
to it the power of communicating the principles of a happy
resurrection to all worthy receivers, (though not in such a
manner as to exclude the necessity of His own immediate
" mighty working.") And that this was the universal belief
of the greatest men in the purest ages of the Church will
appear from the following authorities. Cyril of Alexandria1
speaks of the Eucharist as the Heavenly Life-giving Sacrifice,
" by which death is annulled, and [by which] this corruptible
flesh which is from the earth puts on incorruption." He calls
itk " the Body of the Word, Which quickens all things;" and1
" because it is the Flesh of the Word, therefore it quickens
all :" but more fully still™, " Christ, as God, helping our infir
mities, sends a lively power into the gifts" (the Bread and
Wine) " lying in open view, and changes them so as to become
His Flesh in efficacy, that we may so receive them as to have
Life communicated to us, and that the Body of Life may be
found as a Life-giving seed within us." St. Chrysostom thus
expresses his opinion"; " Because our carnal nature was dead
by means of sin and destitute of all life, Christ introduced
another diet, or leaven, as one may say, being the same in
nature but free from sin and full of life, that being nourished
with it and putting off our former dead nature we may

i e. p. 44. 1. 9. Ap. "' m. p. 45. Ap.

k i. p. 44. Ap. n K. p. 42. Ap.

1 1. p. 44. Ap.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 137

through this diet receive a tincture of immortality ;" and he SECT.
Bonders0, that any body should irreverently receive "the —
Body of Christ, by which we live and have our being." St.
Augustine gives us, not his own single testimony only, but that
of the whole Punic Church, in those memorable words p ;
" The Punic Christians call Baptism nothing but SALVATION,
the Sacrament of Christ's Body nothing but LIFE." He calls
this " an Apostolical tradition and an inborn principleq of the
Church ;" and afterwards adds, " What do they maintain,
who call the Sacrament of the Lord's Table LIFE, but that
which was said, ' I am the Bread of Life/ and, ' Except ye eat
the Flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no Life in you?"
Ambrose tells his young communicant1", t{ The food which you
receive is the living Bread, Which descends from heaven, and
ministers the substance of eternal life." Ephrem Syruss
gives the Eucharist the title of " The mysteries full of immor
tality." Gregory Nyssen* does at large assert this doctrine;
I will translate only a small part of it, viz., " The soul, being
united to Christ by faith, has from thence the means of
salvation ; but the body does, by another way, close and com
municate with our Saviour. — For as a little leaven makes
the whole lump like to itself; so that Body" (he means the
symbolical Body in the Eucharist), " which was by God yielded
up to death, being conveyed into our [body], changes and
converts the whole into itself," &c. Epiphanius saysu, "The
Bread is what we eat, the power in it is for the production of
Life:" Hilary x, " This is the cause of our life, that we have
Christ Jesus by His Flesh remaining in our carnal selves."
Julius Firmicusy speaks of the Eucharist as " the food, which
imparts to mortal men the assurance of immortality;" and
adds, " Seek for the Bread, seek for the Cup of Christ ; that, frail
earth being overcome, the human substance may be replen
ished with immortal provision." Cyril of Jerusalem asserts2,
that " the Bread of the Eucharist is distributed into our
system for the profit both of body and soul." Athanasiusa

0 L. p. 42. l a. p. 23. Ap.
P P. p. 36. Ap. « d. p. 22. Ap.

1 [The Author read insitttm for insti- * a. p. 20. Ap.
tutum, which last has been restored in >' p. 18. Ap.
the present Edition.] z h. p. 19. Ap.

1 g. p. 2(>. A p. il a. p. 17. Ap.

* a. }>. 25. Ap.

138 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, speaks of the Eucharist as "a preservative to eternal life;"

' andb "We have in this life the first-fruits of that [which is to

come], by partaking of the Flesh of our Lord, as He Him
self hath said, ' The Bread which I shall give is My Flesh/ &c.,
for the Flesh of our Lord is a Life-giving Spirit." Clemens
Alexandrinus tells usc, that " to drink of the Cup of the Lord
is to partake of His immortality." Irenseus is most copious
on this subject ; for, discoursing against the heretics who
denied the resurrection of the body, he thus argues d ; " How
can they say, that the flesh, which is nourished by the Body
of the Lord and His Blood, should vanish into corruption ?"
and, " Our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer
liable to vanish into corruption." And again6 : " How can
they say, that the flesh, which is nourished by the Body and
Blood of Christ, and which is a member of Him, is not
capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life ? — And as a
branch of a vine laid in the earth does in time produce fruit ;
and a grain of wheat, falling into the earth and dying, yet
rises again with manifold increase by the Spirit of God; and
afterwards, by the Divine wisdom, they, coming to the use of
man and receiving the Word of God, are made the Eucharist,
which is the Body and Blood of Christ : so our bodies, being
nourished by the same [Eucharist], after they have been
buried in the earth and dissolved in it, shall be raised again
in their proper season." But no one teaches this doctrine
more clearly than the holy Ignatius, whof calls the Eucharist,
" the One Bread, the medicine of immortality, the antidote
against death and for eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord." Cyril of Alexandria could not assert this doctrine
in the fifth century more expressly than Irenaeus did the
same in the second; nor does Irenaeus more plainly assert it
toward the latter end of the second century, than Ignatius did
in the beginning of it.

Thus the terms of the Covenant, on God's part, do prove
the great necessity of the Eucharist; for if pardon, grace,
and eternal life, do depend on our duly administering and re
ceiving this Sacrament, and if baptized Christians have these

b b. p. 17. Ap. e g. p. 6. 1. 14. Ap.

c b. p. 7. Ap. f b. p. 1. Ap.

a f. p. 5. 1. 21. Ap.

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 139

promises there and nowhere else sealed to them, then it is SECT.
very evident that the Eucharist is as necessary, as these
blessings are, to our spiritual welfare.

2. If we consider the Covenant, on our parts, we shall still
be more sensible of the necessity of the Eucharist. Now our
part of the Covenant is, sincere obedience toward God, and
mutual love and charity toward each other.

(1.) The main article in the Gospel- covenant, required on Obedience
our part, is sincere obedience : and since it is evident by the
words used by our Saviour, that we are to eat this Bread and
drink of this Cup as a ff Covenant ;" therefore, whoever partakes | inhthe
of this Sacrament, does thereby profess to stand to his part of
it, and therefore to be in a full and steady purpose of walk
ing in all the commandments of God ; for otherwise he does
not consider and use it as a " Covenant." None therefore
can be worthy receivers but they, who come to the Lord's
Table with sincere obedience or with sincere repentance.
Christ does absolutely require either the one or the other ;
and, to lay the stronger obligations upon us, He commands
us to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood, and thereby to
make our profession of obedience or at least of repentance.
And this was the only proper course He could take to lay
His disciples under a necessity to preserve their covenant
with God, (I mean a necessity without compulsion :) we
either must profess ourselves His disciples by eating this
Bread and drinking this Cup, and by doing this we must
also declare our unfeigned resolutions of keeping all His
other laws ; or else we must own that we are not His dis
ciples, that we do not profess obedience to His laws, and
therefore forbear to communicate in this Sacrament; and
that, by consequence, we are in a state of sin, and that the
wrath of God abideth on us. It is vain for men to say, that
they do obey or do repent, but do not think fit to make pro
fession of it by receiving of the Eucharist ; for, it is certain,
the neglect of this one duty is sufficient to render all that we
do ineffectual ; for Christ Himself hath said, " Except ye eat
the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have
no life in you." So that Christ not only absolutely requires
us to obey or repent, but likewise to make profession of our
obedience or repentance by doing this in remembrance of

140 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. Him, if it be not impossible for want of outward means.
Christ, by making the use of the Sacrament so very necessary,

intended to lay His disciples under the strongest obligations
to obedience ; and it is certainly proper and necessary, that
all men should be sensible of their duty, and should openly
profess this sense, and bring themselves under the most
forcible ties for the performance of it ; and Christ designed
to do all this at once, by expressly charging us to feed on
His Sacramental Flesh and Blood. And it is very vain and
wicked, on the other side, to pretend to lay hold on the
Covenant, and to communicate, while we are in a state of
disobedience or impenitence ; for they, who do this, do cer
tainly " eat and drink their own damnation," by pretending
to covenant and communicate with God, while they are
rebels in their hearts ; or drawing nigh to Him with their
lips, while their hearts are far from Him : so that, in fine, it
is necessary not only in other particulars to comply with the
Gospel-covenant, but to make open profession of it by the
Communion ; and it is necessary, that the Communion should
be received with faithful and obedient dispositions. Wilfully
to abstain from the Eucharist, or to receive it with hypo
critical or profane minds, is dangerous and fatal j and it is
therefore a very important and necessary duty to commu
nicate worthily, and in such a manner, as that Christ may
be one with us and we with Him.

And (2.) But mutual charity of Christians toward each other

\S?is anc* toward all men is so singular a duty, so distinguishing a
necessary badge of Christ's disciples, that it would be a fault not to

tor commu- c

nion with take particular notice of it. This is that which our Saviour
particularly requires of us, whenever we make our approaches

Matt. v. 23, to God's Table, in those excellent words ; " If thou bring thy
gift to the Altar, and there rememberest that thy brother
hath aught against thee ; leave there thy gift before the
Altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and
then come and offer thy gift." By this He obliges all Chris
tians that have done wrong, to make satisfaction, and to use
all proper means to procure a reconcilement, before they dare
to offer their gift, or present their alms or oblations at the
Communion-table ; and by several of His other lessons, He
has obliged them who are wronged, to forgive the injury,

AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 141

when the party who did it turns again and repents : and by SECT.
this means Christ designed to make the Eucharist a means -
not only of communicating with God but also with one
another, and to make the Sacrament of His Body and Blood
a bond of universal peace and amity. And all, sure, will agree
with me, that it was proper that our Saviour should lay upon
men the strongest obligations to peace and holiness, and I
suppose He could not do more to this purpose than He has
actually done, by obliging men to receive this Sacrament,
and by obliging them to do it with holy and peaceable in-
tentions and resolutions ; I mean, He could not have done
more, unless He had used direct force and compulsion.

CHAP. II. SECT. II.

Of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist considered
as a Sacrifice.

IN affirming and proving that the Eucharist is a proper
Sacrifice, I have not been at all upon the reserve, because I
have had a cloud of witnesses, even among the Reformed, that
have borne me out as to this particular : but, in speaking of
the necessity of it, it will become me to tread more warily ;
because, the most eminent vouchers of this truth among us
being now dead, without having expressly delivered their
sentiments concerning the importance of this doctrine, I
am forced here to go by myself. I am very sensible, that if
I should advance the necessity of the practising the Eucha
rist as a Sacrifice, in such a manner as to lay myself open to
a prosecution, I have enemies enow, that are both able and
willing to take the advantage ; therefore I shall not proceed
in the positive way, but only desire my reader to consider,

I. Whether the Eucharist, having been instituted as a
Sacrifice by Christ, ought not, for that reason, to be used as
a Sacrifice by us ?

II. Whether the Eucharist can be esteemed and used as
the principal service and worship of God's Church, if it be
not esteemed and used as a Sacrifice ?

142 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. III. Whether the Eucharist can be the most proper method
- of Christians' communicating and covenanting with God and
each other, if it be not a Sacrifice ? And,

IV. Whether the symbols can be truly consecrated, with
out being offered to God ?

Divine in- I. It seems to be very probable, that all institutions of

stitutions ~. . .-IT

not to be Christ are to be used and practised according to the pattern
altered by an(j Directions which He gave us. Protestants, for instance,
seem agreed, that in the Eucharist we ought always to eat
and drink the symbols as well as to consecrate them ; because
Christ did not only bless the Bread and Cup, but said, " Eat
this, Drink this." They all seem to consent in this, that the
Cup is to be given to all the communicants, because Christ
said, " Drink ye all of this." To alter the institution of
Christ in these particulars would be thought to be an im
pious profanation by all that have a true zeal for the ordi
nances of Christ, of which number I profess myself to be.
Now if Christ did give the Bread to God as His Sacramental
Body, and pour out the Wine as His Sacramental Blood for
the remission of sins ; if He did declare His Body to be now
given, His Blood to be now shed, when He first adminis
tered this Sacrament to the Apostles ; then it seems to me
that we are to do the same, if we are to do what Christ did,
when He first instituted the Eucharist. If indeed it can be
proved, that Christ did mean to say no more than, that His
Body should hereafter be given or offered to God, that His
Blood should be hereafter shed, then I will grant, that this
is no proof of the necessity of offering the Bread and Wine
as the figures of His Body and Blood. But if this cannot be
done, then it well deserves the consideration of all sober
Christians, whether they, who celebrate the Sacrament with
out offering the symbols to God, do fulfil the institution of
Christ; and this consideration is of the greater weight, because
the ancient primitive Church did universally consent in this
practice, and did believe that they had the authority of Christ
for so doing, as I have shewed in the First Part of this work.
If the offering of the Bread and Cup in the Eucharist be the
institution of Christ, all sound Christians will agree with me,
that all the authority of men and angels combined together
cannot alter it.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 143

II. The second question is, whether the Eucharist can be SECT.
esteemed and practised as the principal worship and service ^.^
of God's Church, if it be not practised as a Sacrifice. That the princi-
it is the principal worship and service of God's Church is, of G^d? '
I suppose, sufficiently proved in the last section : and now, Church-
if it do further appear, that the most excellent worship of
God's Church has ever been Sacrifice, then it may seem to
follow, that if the Eucharist be not used and practised as a
Sacrifice, it cannot be the most excellent worship. If indeed
God have varied in this particular, and declared that Sacri
fice is not the most excellent worship under the Gospel,
though it were so before, then it is owned that this argu
ment is of no force ; but if it were in all former ages declared
to be the principal worship of His Church, and if He have
revealed nothing to the contrary under the Gospel, then
perhaps even judicious men may be of opinion that the
Eucharist cannot be the principal and most excellent wor
ship, unless it be used and esteemed as a Sacrifice ; espe
cially when it is considered, that God is so far from having
declared that He would have all men cease to worship Him
by sacrifice, that His own Son taught us to sacrifice, when
He ordained the Eucharist, which I suppose I have already
proved. Now that I may give some light to my reader in
this particular, I will shew what seems to carry a fair degree
of probability with it, viz.

1. That God did, either by the light of nature direct, or by
express revelation first command, or by His approbation con
firm and establish, the worshipping of Him by Sacrifice.

2. That He did direct, command, or establish it, as the
principal worship, which He required.

3. That God did never wholly abolish Sacrifice, and that
therefore it still remains to be the principal worship due to
Him from His Church.

1 . That God did, either by the light of nature direct, or by Sacrifice,
express revelation command, or by His approbation confirm by Divine
and establish, the worshipping of Him by Sacrifice. I see no authont>r-
occasion for any man positively to determine, by which of
these methods God was pleased first to settle the practice of

144 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. Sacrifice. It seems sufficient to say, that Sacrifice has been
- the perpetual worship practised by God's Church and settled
by a Divine authority ; that all pious people, before Christ,
did worship God by Sacrifice, is so well known by all that
read the Bible, that it will be perfectly needless to enter into
the proof of it. That the Jews sacrificed by God's express
command, there can be no doubt; that the ancients, from
Abel to Moses, did offer sacrifice, is very clear; but upon what
principles they did it, is not altogether so certain. Here
there are three opinions which deserve to be considered :
Perhaps by (1.) The first is that of some ancient Christian writers, who
nature. believed that Abel, Noah, and the other Patriarchs, offered
sacrifice by the direction of their reason, or by the light of
nature, or an instinct of conscience. And that this was their
opinion is confessed 8. I believe all will agree with me, that
no law of nature was ever more universally received and prac
tised among all mankind, than this of Sacrifice. We are sure
it began in the infancy of the world, soon after Adam's re
moval out of Paradise, if not before ; and the use of it was
continued amongst all mankind until the coming of Christ ;
and our Saviour was never, by the Christians of the first ages,
thought wholly to have abolished Sacrifice. If we were not
assured by Scripture that Abel and Noah sacrificed, yet we
must in reason believe that this way of worship came from
the first parents of mankind ; for it will otherwise be next to
an impossibility to shew, how it should come to be the uni
versal practice of all civilized nations.

Men might But they, who deny that we have any ideas or notions of
themselves God or His worship written on our minds by nature, may
% th?,.use demand, how men could reason themselves into the use of

ot Sacrifice.

Sacrifice ? And I cannot think that there is any great diffi
culty in this ; for all who believed that God governed the
world, and that they received all the good things they had
from Him, and that by sin they provoked His anger, could
not but use all proper means to express their thanks to Him,
and to procure His favour ; especially when they had reason
to think, that they had forfeited it by any wilful transgression
of His Law. It may be thought, that praise and prayer might
be sufficient to these ends; but the ancient people might

8 Outram de Sacrific., p. 7—11.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 145

think it reasonable to express the thanks and desires of their SECT.
hearts by actions as well as words, as justly supposing that —
actions, especially if they are expensive and magnificent, do
give a greater proof of the earnestness of our thoughts than
bare words can do. The ancients might think that they
could not better declare the sense they had of God's mercies
and their wishes of obtaining His favour, than by offering to
Him a part of the best they had. And all who believe the
Scriptures, and yet think that Sacrifice was an invention of
men, must suppose that the ancient people were led into the
use of Sacrifice by some such notions as these ; and though
they, in their modern wisdom, may think these reasonings
very weak, yet they must be forced to allow that the great
and infallible Judge, Who seeth not as they see, did allow
and approve these reasonings; for He effectually declared
His gracious acceptance of them. If nothing indeed could
be said to be sacrificed but what is burnt in the fire, then it
cannot well be conceived how natural reason could direct
men to sacrifice. Reason can no more direct us to give a
thing to God by putting it into the fire, than by throwing it
into the water. But it has been shewed, that burning is not
the act, whereby a thing is offered to God, but by which He
declared His acceptance of it. And since some of the an
cient people sacrificed without fire, therefore it is possible
that they might reason themselves into this practice. The
Persians thought it sufficient to lay what they sacrificed in a
clean place ; and even some of them, who used altars, yet put
no fire on them, as hath been already shewed.

(2.) The most prevailing opinion among the best Divines others
of later ages is, that Sacrifice was instituted by an express " a

revelation of God to Adam and his children. If we could positive in
depend on the authority of the LXX Translators, this point which is'
would be very clear; for the words of God to Cain, accord-
ing to themh, should be thus turned, viz., "If thou hast offered
rightly, but hast not divided rightly, hast thou not sinned ?"
For by this it seems evident, that God had not only prescribed
the manner of offering sacrifice, but the proportion to be ob
served in dividing it betwixt Himself and the offerers ; and
it must be owned to be impossible by human reason to assign

h Gen. iv. 7, OVK cap opQws irpoaeveyKys, opOws 5e /u.^ 5if\ys,
JOHNSON.

146

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

The two

more rea
sonable,
than that
it was in
vented by
rude men.

CHAP, any proportions in dividing the sacrifice between God and

'- — the priests and people. And many learned men do approve

of this translation, in particular Isaac Vossius and Father
Simon ; nay, St. Paul seems to countenance it, when he says,
"Abel offered more sacrifice than Cain1," for the word ' excel
lent' is not in the Greek.

I conceive, that all who have any regard for revealed Reli
gion must own, that Sacrifice was first enacted by the Divine
will, and taught to the first parents of mankind either by the
light of nature or by express revelation. For otherwise it is
not to be conceived, that Abel, who is proposed to us as an
example of faith and piety, should have presumed to offer it.
It is certain, that during his life-time there was a settled
intercourse between God and man. Adam was yet alive,
who had a frequent correspondence with the other world ;
when it is evident, that God did by an audible voice call
Cain to account for the murder, of which he had been guilty,
and gave a charge to all men that they should not murder
him ; when Cain was permitted to expostulate with God
concerning the grievousness of his punishment ; certainly it
cannot be believed, that Adam and Abel either were not
permitted to inquire of God what sort of worship would be
most acceptable to Him (if they did not know it before by
their own natural light), or that they should of their own
head choose a way of worship, without consulting God or
receiving His instructions, when they might have had them
for asking. Will-worship is thought blameable in us ; but
it was certainly more blameable in them, who could not
want an opportunity of receiving directions from God Him
self. And while God did of His own free grace and favour
so frequently communicate His will to man; it can scarce
in reason be supposed, that He would not of His own accord
inform him in that way of worship, which was most agreeable
to His own will; which was the thing, which it chiefly con
cerned man to know.
If it were a (3\ But the Deists can allow no other beginning to

human in- v ' °

yention,yet Sacrifice but from the simple rude conceits of the ancient
lishedby people; and I find some late Divines joining with them in
thorityau~ ^liis Particular. What end they propose to themselves in

1 Heb. xi. 4, TrAeiWcc 6ucri0.i'''A/3e\ irapa KoiV Trpoar]Vf~yKe.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 147

doing this, the Deists know very well; the others I am SECT,
persuaded can have none but this, namely, to bring Sacrifice —
into contempt, and especially that of the Eucharist ; but in
charity I believe they are not sensible, that by making
Sacrifice a rude fond invention of men, they do very much
lessen the wisdom of the whole Gospel-dispensation, the sum
of which is this ; that the Son of God took our nature upon
Him, in order to render Himself a Sacrifice for the sins of
men. And the Deists know very well, that if Sacrifice itself
owe its beginning to the devices of the dark and ignorant
ages of the world, this will be a means to degrade and bring
into contempt the Sacrifice of Christ Jesus and the Redemp
tion wrought by it; for, upon this supposition, it must be
said, that God sent His Son into the world to die as a Sacri
fice for sin, in compliance with a fond notion of the simple
and rude ancestors of mankind, that Sacrifice was the most
proper method of pacifying God and reconciling Him to
sinful men. It is much more for the honour of this Divine
dispensation to assert, that Sacrifice took its rise from the
will of a most wise and just God, Who, by a decree past
from the beginning of the world and soon after revealed to
mankind, resolved, that Sacrifice should be the means whereby
men should seek His favour ; and that, therefore, in the
fulness of time, His Son should restore lost mankind to His
grace and mercy by the Sacrifice of Himself. And I
conceive, that he who makes the Scripture the measure of
his faith must believe, that God had actually decreed that
Sacrifice should be the means whereby men should render
Him propitious to themselves, before He declared that the
Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. For
there can be no doubt but that the meaning of this declara
tion is, that Christ, by the Sacrifice of Himself or by His
Death, should overcome him that had the power of death,
that is, the devil; and if Christ were to do this by the
Sacrifice of Himself, then God must have, before this,
decreed, that Sacrifice should be the means of obtaining His
favour; for the other decree of the Sacrifice of Christ is
grounded on this decree last mentioned, that Sacrifice should
be the means of obtaining His favour. And since He had
determined this within Himself, it is reasonable to believe,

L2

148

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

Sacrifice,

CHAP, that He did also make it known to men; and the practice of
- Cain and Abel, in offering sacrifice to Him soon after, makes
it highly probable that He did so.

But let it be granted, or rather supposed, that Sacrifice was
tne invention of simple ignorant men ; yet still it must be
grante(* to° D7 ftU tnat believe the Scripture, that God did
was given, approve this manner of worshipping Him, when performed
aright ; for " God had respect to Abel, and to his sacrifice," or
offering : and when Noah offered his burnt-offerings, " the
Lord smelled a sweet savour," that is, He was so far pleased
with it as to accept it, and thereupon to declare that He
would " no more curse the earth for man's sake." And the
signal approbation which God gave of the sacrifices offered
by these two eminent servants of God, was a very great
encouragement to other men to use the same method of
making their addresses to the Divine Majesty ; and by this
means the practice of Sacrifice might be confirmed and estab
lished. It is certain in fact, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
Melchisedec, Job, and Jethro, did offer sacrifice to God ; and
if they had no other grounds to hope for acceptance, but from
the examples of Noah and Abel, yet it cannot be said, that
by using this way of worship they acted without a warrant
from Almighty God.

But we are further assured, that God did, once at least,
expressly command Abraham to sacrifice to Him ; for when

Gen. xv. 9. He says, " Take unto Me an heifer of three years old," &c., by
f taking' He means c offering/ as all expositors do, I think,

Job xiu. 8. agree : and He positively charges Eliphaz to " offer Him seven
bullocks and seven rams." It is evident, that Sacrifice was
looked on as the established worship of God's Church, while the
Israelites were in Egypt ; for ' to serve God' and ' to sacrifice
to Him' are two phrases signifying the same thing in those
texts of Scripture, " Ye shall serve God at this mount," and
6( Let us go, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God ;"
and in those words of Moses to Pharaoh, " Thou must give
us sacrifices and burnt-offerings unto the Lord our God ; for
of [our cattle] must we take to serve the Lord our God, and
we know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we
come thither." And it is certain that God's promise was ful-

Exod.xxiv. filled, and the Israelites did actually sacrifice at this mouu-

5-8.

Exod. m.

12 18

Exod. x.

25 26

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 149

tain, before the Levitical ordinances were given. While the SECT.
Israelites were in Egypt, they might justly be afraid to sacri- -
fice to God in public ; but that they did it in secret, there is
no reason to doubt. Not Sacrifice itself was first established Wisd. xviii.

Q

by the Levitical Law, but those numerous rites and ceremonies
which were to be used in doing of it; and, especially, the
restraint of Sacrifice to one place only, viz., the door of the
tabernacle. Nay, it is certain, that if the Israelites had,
during their abode in Egypt, thought themselves under no
obligation to offer sacrifice to God, yet they must think
themselves bound to do it for the future by virtue of an
express law given to them, before the Levitical ordinances
had ever been mentioned, before any intimation had been
given them of God's intention to have one peculiar taber
nacle for the performance of this worship; nay, before the
making of the golden calf, which is commonly thought to
have given occasion to the whole Levitical way of worship.
The law, meant by me, is that which was delivered immedi
ately after the Ten Commandments, viz., " An altar of earth Exod. xx.
thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy
burnt- offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine
oxen : in all places where I record My Name, I will come
unto thee, and bless thee :" and this is so far from being a
Levitical law, that it was plainly revoked by that Law ; for
here the Jews were to make an altar of earth, and were
to sacrifice, in every place where God should record His
Name, on such an altar ; but by the Levitical Law there was
but one altar of burnt-offering allowed, and that made of Exod.
wood overlaid with brass. Nay, the Passover and the ^xi^'xiii.
firstlings were expressly enjoined to be offered to God before ItiiMiT^
or upon the people's going out of Egypt, and yet were as real Deut- xv-
sacrifices as any that were ever slain in the temple of Jeru
salem. From which it is very evident, that God had, by a
very plain revelation of His will, confirmed and established
this practice of offering sacrifice, before He enacted the
Levitical Law : and that, therefore, if it should be granted
without any proof, that Sacrifice was first invented by men ;
yet it cannot be denied, that it was afterwards commanded
by God. I proceed to shew,

2. That God did establish Sacrifice as the most excellent

150 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, and prevailing way of worship. Now there is no way of
God in- — worsnip to be compared with Sacrifice, but only that of
tended it to prayer and praise, presented to God with a pious heart and

be the most . i i •

excellent voice ; and this is now commonly magnified, as the only
worship. Spirituai an(} acceptable service; but to demonstrate that
this is only a vulgar error, I shall prove these two things,

1. That Sacrifice implies prayer and praise;

2. That it adds force and power to prayer and praise, and
makes them the more prevailing with God.

i. As im- (1.) Sacrifice implies prayer and praise, that is, whatever
prayer and material thing was ever offered to God, the intention of the
person who offered it was, to express his desire that God
would either grant him some particular favour, or, in general,
that God would grant him whatever he stood in need of; or
else it was, to declare his thanks and testify his gratitude for
some mercy which he had received. This was the judgment
of Philok, the very ancient Jew; who says, that all, who offer
sacrifice, do it " by way of prayer or thanksgiving :" and,
speaking of the very ancient people, he says, " They betook
themselves to thanksgiving and prayer, by sacrifice1." It is
upon this account, that the temple, which is in one place
2 Chron. " the house of sacrifice," is at another place called " the house
Isa. ivi'. 7. of prayer." It is a mistake in any man to suppose, that
the prophet Isaiah, when he calls the temple an house of
prayer, means any other prayer but what was employed in
sacrifice. He explains his meaning by those words in the
same verse, "Their burnt-offerings and oblations shall be
accepted on Mine altar:" so that 'to accept sacrifice ' and
'to hear prayer' were phrases of the same signification. The
most learned Outramm has so largely and effectually proved
this, both from the Jewish and heathen writers, that it will
be altogether superfluous for me to dwell any longer upon it.
And the Jews as well as Gentiles did, not only with secret
and silent wishes and the inward devotion of their minds,
but by forms of devotion uttered by word of mouth, declare

k Philo, De Animalib. sacrificio e5o£ev avOpwirots eirl ras 8ia dvffiuv eu-

idon. Xapj<rT/as a^ta Kal AITOS e'Afleti', K. r. A.

1 [Et yap ftov\oir6 ris Qerd^eiv a- p. 240.]

amas $>v eVe/ca TO?S Trpdrois m Outrain, De Sacrif.,p. [235 — 24G.]

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 153

their meaning in bringing the sacrifice to be offered. This SECT.

will appear sufficiently evident to him who peruses the — —

authorities I have elsewhere11 produced concerning offering
sacrifice by prayers. It is therefore impossible in the nature
of things, that prayer and praise without sacrifice can be
better than with it ; because he who sacrifices as he ought
does at the same time pray to God and praise God, and
therefore offers what commonly goes by the name of ' spiritual
sacrifice / and, by doing this, he does all that can be done
with heart and voice, and by this alone equals the devotion
of him who offers nothing but words and thoughts. But
then he does something more too ; he offers such a material
sacrifice as God requires. And,

(2 .) Material sacrifice was designed to add force to prayer
and praise, and make them more prevailing with God ; and
is therefore more excellent and effectual than bare prayer
and praise, proceeding from the mouth and heart : and it is
highly unreasonable, and is an impeachment of the wisdom
and goodness of God, to suppose that He would establish a
practice, or even countenance it, which put the worshippers
to a very considerable charge to no purpose at all. It is, I
conceive, granted by all, who confess there is a God Who
governs the world, that prayer and praise is a worship which
natural light instructs men to pay to Him. Now if these
are as excellent and prevailing with God, when offered singly
and apart, as when joined with material sacrifice, it will be
utterly unaccountable, why God should institute or approve
a way of worship, attended with so much expence and trouble.
The Psalmist desires of God, that " his prayer might be set Psalm cxii.
forth in His sight as the incense ; and that the lifting up of
his hands might be as the evening sacrifice :" but who ever
wished that his sacrifice might be as acceptable as prayer?
The ninth hour was an hour of prayer ; and the reason of it
was, because then the evening sacrifice was offered in the
temple. Elijah chose this time for praying for fire from i Kings
heaven to consume the bullock, thereby to convince the
people that the Lord was God. The incense0 was always

n See Chap. I. Sect. vi. Talmuds, viz., " The trimming of the

° Ainsworth on Exod. xxvii. 21. has five lamps was before the blood of the

the following words from one of the daily sacrifice ; and the blood of the

152 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, burnt immediately after the slaying the morning and evening
7 sacrifice ; and Judith chose this time to offer up her prayers

Judith ix. 1. • 3

too ; as also the people generally did by an established cus-

Luke i. 10. torn, as appears not only from St. Luke, but from the son of

Eccius. 1. Sirach ; who, having described the daily sacrifice, and having

related how "they finished the service, and poured out

the drink-offering at the foot of the altar," adds, " Then

shouted the sons of Aaron, and sounded the silver trurnpets ;

then all the people together hasted, and fell down to the

earth upon their faces, to worship the Lord God; and the

people besought the Lord by prayer." While the flesh of

the sacrifice was burning upon one altar, and the fume of

the incense ascending from the other, was the proper time

for prayer; because sacrifice was intended to enforce other

devotions, and render them more effectual and prevailing

with God. For this reason the altar was thought the most

Psalm xxyi. proper place for all public prayer. Thither David went to

4. ' " shew the voice of thanksgiving, and to tell of God's wondrous

works ;" this was the place he chose, at which to exercise the

duty of praise with vocal and instrumental music; so he

himself informs us, in saying, " I will go unto the altar of

God, and on the harp I will give thanks unto Thee, O God,

i Kings my God." And Solomon did at the same place offer the

yiii 22 54

most solemn prayer of dedication ; for he expected that his
prayers would find the better acceptance by virtue of the
sacrifices there daily offered, and especially of those which
he offered just before this prayer, which were so many that
they "could not be numbered for multitude." It could be for
no other reason, that men, when they were under any pre
sent difficulty, did not think it sufficient to pray, but to pro
mise, that if they were vouchsafed a deliverance from their
present troubles, they would offer sacrifice to God; which
could be done upon no other foundation than this, that
Sacrifice was of greater power with God than bare prayer.
Nay, it appears from this, that Sacrifice, before it was actually
offered, and only sincerely intended and promised, might
move God to grant the petitions of His people, and that

daily sacrifice before the trimming of incense." [The reference given is to
the two lamps ; and the trimming of the Babylonian Talmud, in loma, c. 3.
the two lamps before the burning of fol. 33.]

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 153

prayer, without such a vow, was not so acceptable as with it ; SECT.
and it is well known, that all mankind did of old agree in -
these notions and practices, the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
Nay, when the Jews were under a disability of approaching
to God's altar, and by captivity transplanted into countries
many hundred miles distant from Jerusalem, yet they are
directed to make their prayers toward this place of sacrifice; i Kings
and the heathen p, when they had nothing to offer, enforced
their prayers by reminding their gods of the sacrifices, which
they had formerly presented at the altar. And as it was the
priest's office to bless the people ; so it deserves our parti
cular observation, that the stated time for doing this was
immediately after he had finished the sacrificial solemnity :
" Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed Lev. ix. 22.
them, and came down from offering the sin-offering and the
burnt-offering and the peace-offerings." This was the first
time of Aaron's offering sacrifice, and was designed as a
pattern of his ministrations for the time to come. And after
the most solemn Passover kept by King Hezekiah and his
people, and the magnificent sacrifices of a thousand bullocks
and seven thousand sheep provided by that religious king,
and as many bullocks and ten thousand sheep offered at the
expence of the princes, we read, that " the priests, the 2 Chron.
Levites, arose, and blessed the people ; and their voice was x'
heard, and their prayer came up to God's holy dwelling-
place, even to heaven." So the son of Sirach concludes his
description of the priest's offering sacrifice, with these words ;
" He went down, and lifted up his hands over the whole con- Eccius. i.

90 91

gregation, to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips : and
they (the people) bowed themselves to worship the second
time, that they might receive the blessing from the Most
High." By this is fairly intimated, that by sacrifices duly
offered men take the most effectual course to draw down
blessings from heaven upon their own heads, and that the
priest's power of blessing the people is grounded on that of
offering sacrifice ; and that for this reason the priest's "minis
tering" to God at the altar does in the Scripture-language^

P So Electra in Sophocles : Electra, 'A0' &v e^oi/a \tirape? Trpovffrrjv xepi.

ver. 1376. i See Deut. x. 8; xxi. 5; 1 Chron.

'A.TroA.Aoi', '/Aecos avTwv K\ve, xxiii. 13.
rpbs rovroiffiv, *f) <re Tro\\a S^j

154 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, lead the way to "blessing the people" in God's Name. And1'
— we are assured that the practice of the Jewish priests agreed

with this notion ; for their time of blessing the people was
just after the daily morning-sacrifice. And it is observable,
that8 God first instructed Moses, and he informed his
brother Aaron in the form and manner of blessing the peo
ple, just before the noble and magnificent oblations and
sacrifices were brought by the princes of the congregation
immediately before Aaron's consecration, and was offered by
him presently after it; for this was the first remarkable
occasion which Aaron had to pass this solemn benediction,
after he was consecrated. And by this we are to learn, that
the priest's solemn prayer for a blessing on the people re
ceived its efficacy from the sacrifice, which they offered. I
have elsewhere* spoken more on this subject, when I was
treating of the ends of Sacrifice. I shall therefore have done
with this head, when I have observed, that there is one text
of Scripture, which seems expressly to prefer solemn praises
offered with voice and heart before material sacrifices; I
Psalm ixix. mean those words of David, "I will praise the Name of God

31 32

with a song, and magnify it with thanksgiving : this also
shall please the Lord, better than a bullock that hath horns
and hoofs." But I must crave leave to render the last verse,
" This also shall please the Lord by means of a bullock u,"
&c. This agrees with the sense of the Scripture in other
places, which perpetually attributes to Sacrifice the power of
rendering other devotions more acceptable ; and the Hebrew
is altogether as capable of this sense, as of that which is
commonly given to it.

Prayer and I cannot, therefore, but esteem it one of the most un-
accountable errors of this latter age, that prayer and praise

pre-

r Ainsworth hath the following as all allow. It is true, the LXX render

words from Maimonides, " The priests it farfp rbv /j.6(rxov, K. r. A., and it must

went up to the hank or stage ; after he confessed, that the preposition virep,

that the priests had finished the daily with an accusative, does for the most

morning-service, and lifted up their part signify ' above,' or ' hetter than ;'

hands on high above their heads, and but farep, with this case, may signify

one pronounced the blessing word by 'after:' the Hebrew JfO is so translated

word," &c. [on Numb, vi.23.] Hos. vi. 2, and it will very well fit the

s See Numb. vi. 24, to the end of the words in this place, viz., "This song

chapter, and the whole seventh chapter. shall please the Lord, [being sung]

1 See Chap. I. Sect. ii. after the bullock has been offered as a

u j£ has this signification very often, sacrifice."

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 155

without material sacrifices are more excellent and prevailing SECT,
with God, than with a material sacrifice joined with them. ferred to
The only pretence for this is, that it is more spiritual, and, material
by consequence, more agreeable to spiritual beings, such as
God and the souls of men; and it was this, which made
Porphyry v, after he had apostatized from Christianity, re
nounce not only all outward sacrifice but all use of the voice
or any part of the body in the service of God. This has
already so far transported the Quakers, as to make them
abandon the Sacraments ; and if hereafter any man of new
light shall undertake to refine and improve upon the Quakers'
principles x, it may be justly foretold, that they will either
wholly lay aside public worship, or, however, have none but
silent meetings. It is certain, a worship is spiritual, when it
is rational and intelligible. Material things, as books, and
water, and bread, and wine, and bodily actions, as speaking,
singing, bowing, kneeling, do not at all destroy the nature
of spiritual worship ; nay, kissing was thought very consistent
with it in the Apostles' days. There is in Scripture mention
made of " spiritual sacrifices ;" but that nothing but prayer
can be meant by that expression, has not yet been proved :
nay, prayer does never expressly pass by the name of a sacri
fice in the Old or New Testament. Prayer is sometimes said
to be " offered," and so is the fire with which the sacrifice or
incense was burnt under the old Law ; and Nadab and Abihu
suffered for "offering strange fire;" but neither the prayer
nor fire are honoured with the name of sacrifice. I deny
not but it may be, and is, called so by ancient writers in a
figurative and improper sense, as likewise a "contrite spirit"

v [®vcrofj.fv Toivvv Kal ijfj.€?s' a\\a " He knows (the Spirit that in secret

GiHTo/uiev, us irpo(T-f)K€i, Sia(f)6povs rds sees,

Qvaias, &s &v 8ia(})6pois Swd^fai irpoa- Of Whose omniscient and all- spread-

djovTfS' ©€(£ fj.ei/ Tip ttrl ircunv, ws rls ing love

avfyp ao<f>bs e<£7/, jU7j8ei> riav alcrQ-^rSiv Aught to implore were impotence of

/i^re 9vfj.i<a>VT(s /i^Te eirovo/jLafovres' ov- mind)

Sfv ydp ecmv evvXov, t> fj.T] T<p a.v\q> eu~ That my mute thoughts are sad be-

Qvs 4crriv aKaOaprov. Aib ovSe \6yos fore His throne," &c.

TouTM, 6 Kara <pwv)]v, oiKetbs, ovS1 6 ev- He afterwards added this note : " I

Sov, '6ra.v Trddfi tyvxys p /ue/uoAwyue'- utterly recant the sentiments contained

j/or 5m 8e ffiyTJs Kadapas Kal ruv irepl in the lines, &c., it being written in

avrov KaOapwv tvvoiiav 0pr]a'K€vo/j.€v av- Scripture, ' Ask, and it shall be given

T-6v. — Porph., De Abst, lib. ii. p. you ;' and my human reason being

78.] moreover convinced of the propriety of

x [A late illustrious poet partly ful- offering petitions as well as thanks-
filled this prediction, when he wrote givings to the Deity." — See Coleridge's
the lines, Poetical Works.]

156 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, is called a sacrifice by David, though it be no more than a
— disposition of mind fitting us for devotion and humiliation,
and may prevail with God, when no real sacrifice is to be had.
The Jews, who lived far distant from the temple, were obliged,
for the most part, to content themselves to worship God by
prayer and praise, without material sacrifice, in their syna
gogues ; and this was the case of the Jews that were captives
or by other accidents dispersed in countries remote from
Jerusalem ; but sure, no rational man will doubt but that
the temple-worship was in itself more to be valued and desired
than that of the synagogues ; else why was the temple built
and rebuilt, and the building of it thought so great a blessing?
and whatever is now said of prayer without sacrifice, it is
certain it is but mere synagogue-worship.

God never 3. I am to shew, that God never abolished Sacrifice ; and
Sacrifice, that therefore it still remains the most excellent and prevail
ing method of Divine worship. Now in order to this, I shall
consider those texts which may, in the opinion of some, seem
to declare all Sacrifice abolished.

Psalm xi. The first text of this sort is that of David, " Sacrifice and
5/6 ,&c. offering Thou wouldest not — burnt-offering and sacrifice for
sin hast Thou not required." Many believe that these words
are in some sense to be applied to the time of David, as well
as to that of the Messias; but it cannot in reason be sup
posed, that David did hereby intend to say, that sacrifice was
a needless thing, or that the Law of Moses did not command
men to offer it, or that that Law was out of date. The
contrary to all this was certainly true, and David owned it to
be so by offering sacrifice to God. He might indeed intend
to declare his judgment, that God had no such desires or
appetite to sacrifice as could make Him uneasy at the want
of it, or that He did not choose it as a thing from which He
received any real advantage ; so the Hebrew words here used
may be understood ; and in this sense it was true, not only
in David's time, but in all ages before and after him, that
God takes no real delight, receives no pleasure or profit from
any thing that we are capable of giving Him; He only
accepts of it as of an act of obedience to His laws, and does
not desire it for its own sake, as if He were a gainer by it.
This text is to be understood of the Levitical sacrifices.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 157

So the Apostle teaches us, when, having cited these words, SECT.
he applies them to the sacrifices " offered by the Law /' and Heb ^~
indeed it is absurd to suppose, that either David or St. Paul 6. 8, 9.
should say that God desired no sacrifice at all ; for this would
render the Sacrifice of Christ Himself perfectly vain and
needless. Whereas it is St. Paul's design in this place to
prove, that "David taketh away the first/' that is, the
Levitical sacrifices, "that he may establish the second," that
is, the Sacrifice of Christ. And the ancients, particularly
Eusebius and Augustine, do expressly teach us, that in the
Eucharist Christ did " do the will of God/' or " offer the
delightful thing y," mentioned by David in this text ; and, by
consequence, this text is so far from declaring all Sacrifice
unnecessary, that it mightily confirms and raises the value of
our Christian Sacrifice.

The second text, which seems to look this way, is that of
Asaph ; the words are these ; " I will take no bullock out of Psalm i.
thy house, nor he-goat out of thy folds ; for all the beasts of
the forest are Mine, so are the cattle upon a thousand hills :
I know all the fowls upon the mountains, and the wild beasts
of the field are in My sight. If I be hungry, I will not tell
thee; for the whole world is Mine, and all that is therein.
Thinkest thou, that I will eat bull's flesh, and drink the blood
of goats ?" It is very evident, it was the Psalmist's intention
to expose the folly of those men, who looked on Sacrifice as
the giving God a meal's-meat, or as intended to satisfy His
appetite; who esteemed God no other than a greedy op
pressive prince, who robbed the flocks and herds of his
subjects in order to fill his own insatiable stomach. It is
certain, this was the notion of many heathen concerning their
gods, and, probably, of some gross carnal Jews. Now God
by His Prophet here declares, that He was so far from any
such wants of flesh broiled on their altars, that He would
"take" or ' accept of no bullock or goat at the hand of any
man that had such unworthy notions of Him. No man will,
I suppose, say, that the sacrifices of the Law were, by virtue
of this or any other declaration in the Old Testament, im
mediately abolished ; it is certain that they were in full force
until our Saviour's Death.

y See Part I.

158

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

xxiv. 25.

Psalm li.
18,19

CHAP. If any man look on these words as a prophecy, that all

- bloody sacrifices were to cease in the time of the Messias, I

readily agree with him : but then it is observable, he mentions

only bloody sacrifices, and that Asaph here declares that even

Psalm 1. 14. under the Messias men were to offer a " sacrifice of thanks
giving/' and this is the plain English of the word ' Eucharist ;'
and that this does commonly, in the Scripture, signify some
material sacrifice, I have formerly proved at large55.

Psalm li. 16. The third text is that of David, " Thou desirest no sacrifice,
else would I give it Thee ; but Thou delightest not in burnt-
offerings." Now it is impossible that these words can imply
an utter abolition of sacrifice ; because we are sure that David
himself did offer sacrifice not only before his inditing this

2 Sam. vi. Psalm, I mean, upon his bringing the ark to Zion, but after

2 Sam. &, when the angel appeared to him in the threshing-floor of
Araunah. And indeed he speaks in this very Psalm of a
time yet to come, when men should offer such sacrifices, and
when God should accept them, though at present He did
not : this is evidently the meaning of those words, " O be
favourable and gracious unto Zion, build Thou the walls of
Jerusalem ; then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifice of
righteousness, with burnt-offerings and oblations, then shall
they offer young bullocks upon Thine altar." I have already a
shewed, that a "sacrifice of righteousness" signifies a noble
or rich sacrifice, such as was proper for king David to offer.
These words therefore may signify no more than this, that in
case of murder or adultery God neither required nor accepted
a sacrifice. And as this is a certain truth, so it was much to
David's purpose to observe it : for his design in this Psalm
was to ask God's pardon for these crimes committed against
Uriah; and if David had said that God desired not an offering
for sin, this would have given further advantage to this inter
pretation ; but he mentions only burnt-offerings and sacrifices,
that is, peace-offerings.

Now since it is evident, that God for some time did not
desire sacrifices, and yet David expected a time to come
when He would again shew His approbation of them ; and
since David tells us when this time would be, namely, when
God should be "gracious to Zion, and build the walls of

7 See Part I. p. [379.] » Chap. I. Sect. v.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 159

Jerusalem ;" from hence I think it may fairly be concluded, SECT.
that David had conceived some hopes, that God would here- —
after shew that He had chosen Zion to be the constant seat of
His worship, and that then He would give some visible token
of His acceptance of the sacrifices there offered. He had, for
some years before, removed the ark thither, and upon that
occasion offered sacrifice, as was just now observed . If God had
then declared that He had chosen Zion for the place of His
worship, by sending down fire from heaven to consume the
sacrifice, he had no doubt forthwith complied with the will
of God, and settled Divine service in that place. It had long
been his wish that " God would come to him," that is, take Psalm ti. 2.
Zion for the place of His residence ; and at last, " when i Chron.
David saw that God answered him by fire, he sacrificed *xii. i. '
there," and presently said, " This is the house of the Lord
God, and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel." But
he composed this Psalm, before God had been thus " gracious
to Zion," while he was in suspense where the place of sacri
fice was to be : and it seems probable, that he never did sacri
fice at all between the time of his bringing the ark to Zion,
and " the Angel's smiting the people ;" nor had he sacrificed
then, if Nathan had not expressly charged him to do it in
the Name of God. Therefore when he says, " Thou desirest
no sacrifice, though b I have given it Thee, and Thou delightest
not in burnt-offerings," I take his meaning to be this ; that
God had not yet shewed him His acceptance of the sacrifices
offered in Zion, as he hoped He would hereafter ; and when
it should please the Divine Majesty to do this, and to "build
the walls of Jerusalem," and make it a place fit for so noble a
sacrifice, then he promises God plenty of sacrifices; "Then,"
says he, " shall men offer young bullocks upon Thine altar."
In the mean time, the tabernacle of Moses and altar of burnt-
offering was at Gibeon, though the ark were in the new taber
nacle upon mount Zion ; and so David, as well as others, was
under an uncertainty where to offer sacrifices with just hopes
of acceptance, and of this he complains in this text.

The fourth place to this purpose is that of Isaiah, " To isa. i. 11—
what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me, saith
the Lord ? I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the

b ) often signifies ' though,' and this I take to be the proper meaning here.

160 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks
'- — or of lambs or of he-goats : when ye come to appear before
Me, who hath required this at your hands, to tread My courts?
Bring no more vain oblations ; incense is an abomination
to Me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies,
I cannot away with ; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting :
your new moons, and your appointed feasts, My soul hateth j
and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes
from you, yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear :
your hands are full of blood." It ought first to be considered,
of what it is that God says, " who hath required this at your
hands ?" and it is certain, this is here particularly applied to
f appearing before God/ and ' treading God's courts' or coming
to the place of religious worship : therefore it cannot so be
understood as to say, that God did not require the duty here
mentioned, which was, the performance of public worship ;
but what he says is, that He did not require it at their hands,
He never intended that such vile wretches, as they were,
should presume to come into His house : for it is observable,
that no sacrifice was appointed for the expiation of murder
by Moses' Law ; and God here speaks to men, whose hands
were full of blood, who had either actually shed innocent
blood or were fully disposed to do it.

I need say no more in relation to this text, but that Sacri
fice is here set on the same foot with "sabbaths," "the solemn
meetings," and "prayers;" God declares them all to be "abomi
nations," and that He "will not hear" their devotions. It is
very evident therefore, that God could not declare against
the things themselves, for they were all expressly enjoined
by His Law : He could no more say of Sacrifice than of "sab
baths" or "prayers," "who hath required them?" But He
might very well say, "who hath required them at your hands?"
For God never designed that His ordinances should be used
by impenitent sinners. If Sacrifice be here abolished, prayer
is abolished with it.

The fifth text is from the same Prophet, and to the same

Isa. ixvi. 3. purpose, " He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man ; he

that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck ;" and the

reason of this is given in the next words, " They have chosen

their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abomina-

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 161

tions." Their vices polluted all their services and devo- SECT.

II.
tions.

The sixth is that in Jeremiah, "Your burnt -offerings are Jer. vi. J9f
not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto Me :" and the
reason of this is given in the foregoing words, " because they
have not hearkened to My Word, but rejected it."

The seventh text is that of the same Prophet, where God
is represented as saying, according to our Translation, "I Jer. viL22,
spake not to your fathers in the day that I brought them
forth out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings
and sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying,
Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My
people." Now this text does not tend to the abolishing of
Sacrifice, nor does it deny Sacrifice to be of God's own institu
tion. It only seems to say, as we have rendered the words,
that God did not command the Israelites to sacrifice at the
time of His bringing them out of Egypt. But this cannot
be their true meaning, because it is certain, that God did
speak to them of Sacrifice, that is, of the Passover, and the
sacrificing of the first-born, at the very time that He brought
them out of Egypt : and He speaks to them of burnt-offer
ings in the very same chapter, in which He gives us the Ten
Commandments; therefore we must turn the words thus,
"I spake not to your fathers, &c. concerning the manner0
of burnt-offerings and sacrifice," meaning by "the manner"
the numerous rites and ceremonies which are enjoined in
the three last Books of Moses, which were not indeed spoken
of, when God brought them out of Egypt. Irenseus d under
stands the words, as if God had said, " I spake not to your
fathers, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt for
the sake of sacrifices ;" or, as if the main intent I had in de
livering them from their bondage were, that I might have
greater plenty of beasts offered to Me. And, it is certain, the
Hebrew words will bear this construction, and so will the
Greek Translation. The words are by the generality of inter
preters understood to mean no more than this, that God did
not at His bringing them out of Egypt insist so much on Sacri-

c *H3"T?JJ for mjJVpJJ ' de holocaustis,' but ' holecaustorum

d Advers. hter., lib. iv. c. 32, but gratia,' or the like: and it is certain,

then the Translator of Irenaeus ought irepl has this signification.

not to have turned ircpl bXaKavrtafjidroiv

JOHNSON. j^j

162 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

c HA p. fice, as He did on obedience to His commands ; and the words,

so taken, do not in the least hint to us any design of God to

abolish Sacrifice.

Hosea vi. 6. The eighth text is that of Hosea, " I will have mercy, and
not sacrifice; and the knowledge of the Lord, rather than
burnt-offerings." And no more can be meant by this, than
that God chooses mercy and the practical knowledge of Him
self, rather than Sacrifice. In this all interpreters agree ;
and this does by no means abolish Sacrifice, but only makes
it less valuable than universal obedience to the Moral Law.

Amos v. 21. The ninth is that of Amos, by whom God says, " I hate,
I despise your feasts, I will not smell in your solemn assem
blies; though ye offer Me burnt-offerings and meat-offer
ings, I will not accept of them." This is no more than what
God said before by Isaiah, that He abhorred, not the sacri
fices themselves, but their profane way of offering them ; for
their crimes are particularly mentioned in this very chapter.
They are said to "turn judgment to wormwood, and to have
left off righteousness, to have trodden upon the poor; their
transgressions were manifold, and their sins mighty." For
it is the greatest abuse of Sacrifice to suppose, that it was in
tended to protect men in their villainies.

The last passage in Scripture to this purpose is that of

Micah vi. Micah ; "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow
myself before the High God ? Shall I come before Him with
burnt-offerings, and with calves of a year old ; will the Lord
be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of
rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath shewed
thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord thy God
require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to
walk humbly with thy God?" The Prophet here compares
Sacrifice with justice, mercy, and humility, and gives the pre
ference to the latter, in which I suppose all agree ; but it is
probable, that he means heathen sacrifice. Grotius supposes
that, by ' giving the first-born for one's transgression/ he re-

2 Kings iii. fleets on the story of the king of Moab, related in the second
Book of Kings. When Micah asks, "What doth the Lord
require, but justice," &c., he cannot in reason be supposed to
exclude all other duties, excepting those here mentioned. God

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 163

certainly requires us to love Him above all things, and He SECT,
further demands of all in this age, that they should believe -
in Christ ; and yet neither of these duties are so much as
hinted by the Prophet ; therefore by the three moral virtues
here mentioned, Micah meant all other graces and moral
duties, and he plainly enough declares that they are more
acceptable to God than sacrifice.

It appears from these texts, that obedience to God's Moral Obedience
Law was better than any of the sacrifices that could be offered, sacrifice.
before Christ came, in itself considered ; and this is the only
conclusion that can be drawn from these texts to the lessen
ing of the excellence of Sacrifice. It is true, there is another
consequence to be drawn from them, namely, that no sacri
fice, how valuable soever, shall be accepted from wicked
hands, so as to render it beneficial to him that offers it ; but
this does not at all lessen the value of Sacrifice, but only
shews the odiousness of sin, which turns the greatest bless
ings into the greatest curses. I shall therefore at present
only consider the true meaning of this maxim, that " obe
dience is better than Sacrifice," or, as it is expressed in the
Gospel, that the " love of God and our neighbour is better Mark xii.
than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices." Some seem willing 39'
from hence to conclude, that he who loves God and his
neighbour is not bound to sacrifice at all; but this is very
rash and absurd ; for it ever was and ever will be the duty of
men to sacrifice, as well as to love God and man : we must
do the one, and not leave the other undone. To love God
and man is a more weighty and momentous duty than
prayer ; it does not therefore follow, that prayer is needless
or unnecessary. The prayer and sacrifice of the wicked is
an abomination in the sight of God. If the prayer and
sacrifice of the righteous added nothing to Him, then it
must follow, that prayer and sacrifice were to no purpose :
the good would have no occasion for it, and the bad by offer
ing it would make their case still worse. Though therefore
obedience be better than Sacrifice, yet not in such a sense,
as that he, who does in other respects obey God's laws, is
free from the law of Sacrifice. Therefore the meaning of
this maxim is,

1. That a virtuous life is much better than the mere out^

M2

164

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, ward work of sacrifice; for sacrifice offered by wicked men,

- — whose hearts are void of any inward good dispositions, is

merely an outward performance ; and it is of such sacrifices,

that all those texts of Scripture, which I have now produced

to this purpose, are to be understood.

2. That in case we cannot perform both, we are to choose
to obey a moral law rather than the law of Sacrifice. So
our Saviour chose to converse with heathen men and sinners,
in order to do a real charity to their souls, rather than to obey
a law6 relating to Sacrifice, which was to avoid the touch of
an unclean person, and, by consequence, not to eat or drink
with him ; and hereupon Christ justified Himself for eating
and drinking with such men, by that saying, " I will have
mercy and not (or rather than) sacrifice;" for he who eat
and drank with such men was thought unclean, and there
fore not fit to offer sacrifice.
Obedience But neither of these considerations does at all lessen or

better than .

Prayer. disparage the excellence of worshipping God by sacrifice.
For the same things may as truly be said of what men now
commonly call ' spiritual worship ;' for, certainly, of the two,
it is much better to obey in all other respects, and to omit
prayer and praise, than to be frequent and constant in
prayer and praise, and to omit all or many other duties;
especially, if our prayers and praises are merely formal and
external, as the devotions of all men, who are negligent in
other duties, commonly are. And no man can doubt but
that prayer and praise are to be omitted both in public and
private, when they interfere with any act of charity, which
cannot so well be performed at another time ; so that they,
who by this maxim, that " Obedience is better than Sacrifice,"
would prove Sacrifice unnecessary, must by consequence
prove all prayer and praise to be so too.

Better not When Samuel told Saul, that "to obey is better than
thaiTto Ce' sacrifice," his meaning must have been, that it had been
fs forbidden better for him to have obeyed God's will, than to have sacri-

'

ficed ™ he did' airec% contrary to God's Law. If he had
i Sam. xv. sacrificed according to God's directions, as pious Israelites
13 ' J ' did, he had obeyed and sacrificed both in one ; and it is

e Numb. xix. 22, "Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth, shall be un-
ckan," &c.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 165

further to be observed, that he does not mean obeying the SECT.
Moral Law, but complying with an express positive law or
revelation. Saul's fault was, the saving the Amalekites,
which God by Samuel had commanded to be destroyed,
and his invading the priest's office. These were neither of
them moral laws. By sacrificing he broke one law, because
he was not called of God to the priestly office, as was Aaron;
by saving that which was devoted to destruction, under pre
tence of intending to offer it in sacrifice, he brake another
law. From this we may learn two things; first, that it is
much more pious and commendable to forbear sacrifice, than
for a man, under pretence of some urgent motive or neces
sary occasion, to offer a sacrifice without a call or commis
sion from God. It is certain, that Saul was rejected from
the kingdom of Israel for this presumption. The other is,
that we should take heed that we do not offer such materials
in sacrifice, as God has forbidden ; for such were the cattle
of the Amalekites.

This naturally brings me to consider, whether all bloody AH sacri-
sacrifices, and all other sacrifices, except that of the Eucha- th?Eucha-
rist, be now utterly abolished. I have sufficiently proved, "s£ a^°~
that God did never declare any intention of abrogating all
Sacrifice : but now it remains for me to shew, how all Sacri
fice is abolished, except that of the Eucharist ; and I suppose
it will be granted me, that whatever was typical was done
away in Christ, because He was the completion of those
types. It has ever been the judgment of all sound Divines
both ancient and modern, so far as I am able to inform
myself, that every bloody sacrifice, offered before and under
the Law, was a figure of Christ to come; that they were
shadows, and Christ the Body; and they now, being all
verified and accomplished, do cease for the future. And that
the unbloody sacrifices of the Law were also types of the
Eucharist, was the judgment of the ancients; who, there
fore, believed, that the Prophet Malachi, by the " pure meal-
offering to be offered in every place/' did foretel the Sacri
fice of Christ's Sacramental Body and Blood; and, since the
•Christian meal-offering has taken place, the Jewish meal-
offering is to be no more. By this means only, the Jewish
seventh-day Sabbath was annulled; it was " a shadow of what Col.ii. 17.

166 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, was to come;" and, by the same reason that the Sabbath
— : gave place to the Lord's day, the bloody and unbloody sacri
fices of the Law gave place to the Sacrifice of Christ.
Or made Though, in truth, there is no necessity that we should prove
needless. Bloody sacrifices to be abolished by any express declaration
of Almighty God in the New Testament, it is sufficient that
they are perfectly needless and superfluous. And I shewed
that they are so, when I proved f, that the Eucharist does
effectually and abundantly answer all the ends of the ancient
sacrifices. For what man of common discretion will put him
self to an unnecessary charge, or be at the expence of an
animal, when the frugal and pure Sacrifice of the Christian
Church is of infinitely more value than all the cattle upon a
thousand hills ? What man in his right senses will make it
his choice to offer a bullock or ram, when he is convinced,
that there is a Sacrifice far more precious and prevailing
with God ? Therefore, though by the express words of St.
Heb. x. 9. Paul the Levitical sacrifices are " taken away," yet there is
no general declaration of God's abolishing all bloody Sacri
fice, either in the Old or the New Testament. Under the Old
Testament, bloody sacrifices were always required ; under the
New, there was no need to declare them abrogated ; they must
fall, of course, without any such declaration ; and the Great
Sacrifice of Christ, offered in person, did at once render the
Eucharist a perpetual unchangeable Sacrifice, and made all
other sacrifices altogether needless.

Arecapitu- Thus I have made good what I undertook, viz., that Sacri-
this section, fice was originally founded upon a Divine authority; that it
was intended to be the most excellent way of worship, as
being not only prayer and praise but an enforcement of
them ; that God never declared any design of wholly abolish
ing Sacrifice; and though the Levitical sacrifices were indeed
abrogated by the Death of Christ, yet Sacrifice in general
never was ; that the Death of Christ, which extinguished the
sacrifices of Moses, gave life and birth and perpetuity to the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist. And though no other sacrifices
but those of the Levitical Law are expressly declared to be
abolished, yet all other sacrifices vanished, as types that were
accomplished by the Sacrifice and Death of Christ ; or, how-

f See Chap. I. Sect. ii.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 167

ever, are become wholly unnecessary by reason of the more SECT.

sufficient and perfect Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; which does

better serve all the ends of Sacrifice than any or all the other,
which were used either by the Jews or Patriarchs.

It does indeed appear, that the love of God and man is Sacrifice
more excellent than the bare external action of offering as well as
sacrifice, let it be never so perfect in its kind ; but then he, °
who does both love God and man and offers sacrifice under
this blessed disposition of mind, does much better, than he,
who fulfils these two great laws of the Gospel without ful
filling the law of sacrifice ; " for he who offends in this one
point is guilty of [not having kept] the whole Law." It is
certain, that the best obedience which we can perform is im
perfect, and therefore not acceptable, without the merits of
Christ -, and I have shewed that one main design of the Eu
charist is, to plead the merits of Christ in the most effectual
and prevailing manner before our Heavenly Father : and

I therefore humbly recommend it to the consideration of
my judicious reader, whether the Eucharist can be esteemed
the principal worship of God's Church, if it be not a real
Sacrifice and practised as such. If worshipping God by offer
ing to Him no material thing but barely thoughts and words,
be the most spiritual and the most excellent service, I desire
it may be considered, whether the worship used by the Jews
in their synagogues be not as spiritual as that which is used
by those Christians, who declare against all material Sacri
fice, and if it be as spiritual, then why is it not to be preferred
before the old temple- worship ?

It may be said, that prayers offered by the Church in the Praying in
Name of Christ are as available as if the Eucharist were Nameiith-
offered together with those prayers; but I desire my reader £h!u£te "not
would consider, whether what I have said under the second so available
head of the foregoing section, be not sufficient to shew, that
to pray in the Name of Christ is to offer our petitions to God
in and by the Eucharist. I believe it very proper and com
mendable, that all prayers, both public and private, should
end as they usually do, with those words, " through Jesus
Christ our Lord;" but I wish that people do not lead them
selves into an error, by taking from thence an occasion to
think that our Saviour meant nothing else by what He calls

168 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, "praying in His Name," but only using these or such like
- words at the conclusion of our devotions.

III. I proceed to the third question, viz., whether the
Eucharist can be the most proper method of Christians' com
municating and covenanting with God, if it be not used as a
Sacrifice ? I am far from even supposing, that Sacrifice is the
only rite or method of covenanting with God. Nobody can
question but that Baptism at present, and Circumcision of
old, was a rite of entering into covenant with God. But the
question is, whether they who are already in covenant with
God, as all baptized Christians certainly are, can properly
continue or renew that covenant without actual Sacrifice;
and the following reasons incline me to think it probable,
that, after we have first struck covenant with God, our
Covenant and Communion with Him is to be maintained
by Sacrifice.

God ever 1. Because God has always, since the first institution of
Circumcision, prescribed this method of covenanting and com-
municatmg with them that were already His people. Before
Circumcision was instituted, it does not appear that there was
any other method of God's communicating with men, but
Sacrifice only. Since the time of Abraham, Sacrifice is the
only method of renewing the covenant with them that had
before entered into it. This, then, is evident, that Sacrifice
has always by God's appointment been a method of covenant
ing and communicating with Him, and the only method, by
which they who were already His people could renew it ; and
there is not any probability of His having made any altera
tion in this point, since it does not appear that He ever
intended to abolish Sacrifice, as hath appeared upon a parti
cular examination of all those texts, which are supposed by
some to look this way. And if Sacrifice be still in force, then
certainly it is to be performed with the same view, and to the
same ends, for which it was first established. And one end,
and that the principal, always was, for the renewing of cove
nant and communion with God, and to recover it, when it
was lost or endangered by wilful sin. And, certainly, if the
Church of God did ever preserve its communion with God
principally by Sacrifice, it will very well deserve our serious
thoughts, whether it can now be preserved by any other

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 169

means, except it can be proved that God hath made new SECT.
laws or provisions as to this particular.

2. Another just reason I have to question, whether Cove- The Bucha
nan t and Communion can be continued with God by the Eu- "d as a '

charist, when it is not used as a Sacrifice, is this, viz., that as

it is on all hands allowed, that this Sacrament is the principal gating with

God, and

means by which the Church communicates with God, so it therefore
seems to me altogether as plain, that this Sacrament was sacrifice.
instituted by Christ to be the constant standing Sacrifice of
His Church. Now, if the Eucharist be by its institution a
Sacrifice, it seems from thence unavoidably to follow, that it
was designed for the same end with all other sacrifices ; and
that Christ made it a Sacrifice for this very purpose, that by
it this Covenant and Communion might be made perpetual :
and that, therefore, if it be not practised as a Sacrifice, not
only the institution of Christ is in this respect neglected, but
the end of the institution, which is preserving covenant and
communion with God, is not so effectually attained.

3. There is greater reason still for this question, because Sacrifice, in
it seems highly probable, that sacrifice is, in strictness, the:|jjjjtj|jjer
only proper or most excellent manner of maintaining com- means of

. . . communion

munion betwixt God and His Church. The most clear and with God.
perfect notion of Communion that I can conceive, is this,
that it is ' a mutual giving and receiving ;' and mutual giving
and receiving implies perfect friendship, consent, and good
inclinations towards each other, which is the truest agree
ment, alliance, or confederacy. Now Sacrifice is, I think, the
only religious solemnity, in which mutual solemn pledges pass
between God and His Church. Irenseusg teaches us, that
this was the end of the ancient sacrifices, in those excellent
words ; " God wants nothing, but man wants communion
with God ; and He grants the communion of Himself to them
who want it." He shews further, that God did this by " sacri
fices and oblations." And, certainly, of all sacrifices that
were ever offered, the Eucharist is best contrived by the
Divine Wisdom for continuing a constant covenant and com
munion betwixt God and His Church. For in it the Church
presents to God the very best she has to give, that is, the
Bread and Wine, made the Sacramental Body and Blood of

e Lib. ix. cap. xxviii.

170 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. Christ by His own appointment, and receives them back
- again enriched with the special blessing of the Holy Spirit,
as an earnest of all Divine graces that we can enjoy in this
life or hope for in the next. This seems clearly to have
been St. Paul's notion; for he saysh, that the Israelites in
their sacrifices did " communicate with the altar," that is,
with the true God, Whose altar it was; and he supposes
that the Gentiles in their sacrifices "communicated with
devils," to whom their sacrifices were offered, and from whom
they received some share back again. He mentions "the
Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ," as exactly
answering these sacrifices ; and by " the Communion of the
Body and Blood," we cannot, I humbly conceive, more
properly understand any thing, than the mutual giving and
receiving It ; our presenting It to God, and having It restored
to us again for the strengthening and refreshing our souls.
Sacrifice, therefore, being the fixed, settled method of com
munion between God and His Church, and the Eucharist
being the only proper Sacrifice we have to offer, I leave it
to the judgment of all serious and impartial inquirers,
whether they who do not use the Eucharist as a Sacrifice
do not thereby neglect the only or most proper means of
covenanting or communicating with God; for no one can
doubt but this Communion is most perfect, when something
is given or offered to Him, as well as received from Him:
and if, therefore, the Jews in their service did offer something
to God, and Christians do not, whether it will not be hard
to prove that their services, in this respect, were not more
excellent than ours.

This ap- What I have hitherto offered on this head, may be supposed
ward com-" *° concern only the external communion betwixt God and
munion. jjjs Church on earth. Therefore it well deserves our con
sideration, whether inward communion with God can be pre
served without the use of this outward means. In the last
part of the former section I shewed1, that all promises are
made to Christians, as they are a Church, that is, a body of
men combined together for the service of God and Christ

h 1 Cor. x. 18. 20, KOIVWOVS elvat most exact version is ' to have com-

and Koiv(tiv<Civ are indifferently rendered munion with.'
by our Translators 'to have fellowship ' See Part I. p. [384.]

with' or 'to partake with;' but the

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 171

Jesus ; and every branch and twig of a tree must be sapless SECT.
and barren, if it have no communication with the body ; and -
our communion with the Body does chiefly depend upon our
joining in this most proper and principal worship ; and the
Eucharist seems to be this most proper and principal worship
by Its being a Sacrifice. It is true, this communion between
God and the souls of good men is continual ; nothing inter
rupts it, but presumptuous sin. But then I conceive, it is
chiefly supported and rendered perpetual by the fresh streams
of Divine grace flowing upon the soul in this Divine ordi
nance, and by the constant disposition of the mind toward
this Spiritual Food, when It may be had ; (for no man shall
suffer for the want of It, but for his own wilful neglect.) It is
true, Prayer has the promise of all blessing annexed to it ; but
then, I conceive, it must be a prayer offered in Christ's Name >
and no man ought to be so secure that he prays in Christ's
Name, but he who offers his devotions in the Eucharist. It
is certain, that prosperity and success in worldly affairs, and
even some spiritual mercies, as opportunities of good instruc
tion, religious knowledge, good tendencies and dispositions,
the escaping great trials and temptations, are often the effect
of private prayers, and are probably granted to many without
asking at all ; however, to great numbers that keep at a
distance from the Lord's Table. But, I conceive, the chief
benefit of our communion with God consists in the pardon of
our sins, in the more plentiful supplies of Divine grace and
inward strength against our spiritual enemies, and in the assu
rance of Eternal Life ; and these benefits, though they are
always to be asked in prayer, yet are not, I humbly conceive,
conveyed or actually sealed to us in this life anywhere but
in the Eucharist. These are the covenant-blessings of the
Gospel; and though we must always pray for them, yet there
is no certainty of receiving them, unless we lay hold on that
Covenant, in the way which Christ Jesus has directed. And
I submit it to the judgment of my readers, whether, in order
to make more sure of these blessings, we ought not to make it
our chief care to have it administered and received, according
to the pattern given us by Christ, that is, as the standing cove
nanting solemnity of His Church, and therefore as a Sacrifice?
I am sensible, that some make the communion betwixt

172 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP. God and the soul to consist in Divine in-comes, in having the
soul carried out toward God by an irresistible overcoming

sweetness. If by these and such-like phrases they mean any
thing that is intelligible and can be expressed in plain words ;
it is, I suppose, that fervent zeal, which good men exercise in
their prayer, and that secret pleasure, which they perceive in
the performance of that duty. And that this, when it is real,
is an effect of God's grace, I doubt not : but no man ought
too much to rely on these inward soothing motions of his
own mind, or to draw from thence any certain conclusions of
God's special good-will toward him ; for there is just reason
to believe, that they very often proceed from a warm fancy ;
and, at the best, they are not to be compared to that sure
Word of Promise, which has made the Sacrament a Covenant
in Christ's Blood, and therefore the most certain method of
inward as well as outward Communion with God.
Communion But it has been before observed, that the Eucharist is
Christian*, not only a communion between God and His Church, but
hTthe1SEu- between the several members of His Church with each
charist. other. I need spend no words to prove, that Jesus Christ
intended that His Church, the whole multitude of His
Priests and people, should be united in the bond of peace
and love, and knit together in a continual league and friend
ship. It is certain that people did of old confirm their
Gen. xxxi. covenants with one another by sacrifice. Thus did Laban
"54> and Jacob : and though the Israelites could not in this most
solemn manner enter into covenant with other nations,
because no people but themselves worshipped the True God
and Him only ; yet it is evident, that their unity among
themselves in worshipping the same God, at one place, and
in one and the same manner, was intended to be the founda
tion of a perpetual peace and alliance with each other. And
Josh. xxii. it was for this reason, that Phinehas the priest and the heads
of the ten tribes charge the Reubenites and Gadites for
" rebelling," or rather ' turning apostates/ not only " against
God," but against their brethren of the other ten tribes,
because they had built a new altar ; for Phinehas and the
rest of the Israelites apprehended, that they designed on this
altar to offer sacrifice to some strange god, or, however, not
to join with them in offering their sacrifice according to

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 173

the Law of Moses ; and this they rightly judged to be an SEC T.
apostasy, rebellion, or violation of the covenant of perpetual -
peace, which was grounded on their sacrificing at the same
altar and to the same God. The Reubenites and Gadites
purge themselves from this crime* by declaring, that the new
altar was not built for sacrifice, but to be a witness between
themselves and the other tribes; lest it might in future ages
be said to them, " Ye have no part in the Lord :" for, by
being excluded from the public worship, they were sensible
that they should be looked upon as a people lopt off from
the main body of that nation, because the bond of peace,
which was their sacrificing at the same altar, would thereby
be broken. That the heathen confirmed their leagues by
joining together in the solemn offering of sacrifices, is com
monly observed by writers on this subject ; and I have given
two remarkable instances of it in the margink. Now since it
is evident that our Saviour intended, that His disciples should
regard one another as members of the same Body, that they
should be of one heart and one mind, that there should be
no divisions among them, and that universal love and mutual
affection should be the mark whereby good Christians should
be distinguished from the rest of the world ; and since He
laid so very great a stress upon this single duty; therefore
it was necessary, that He should bind it on our consciences
in the most strong and effectual manner. And-it cannot be
conceived, how God could lay a higher obligation upon us to
preserve continual love and peace together, than by requiring
us all to join in offering the same Sacrifice, and thereby to

J [i.e. crimen; crime is here, evidently, "EK\fov, 778' eij^ovro 0eo?s

a Latinism for ' criminous charge.'] Tyaiv. — [ibid., 292.]

k Menelaus in Homer says, Turnus, in Virgil, says,

Ofrrere S1 &pv', frepov \cvn6v, IrepTji/ Fer sacra, Pater, et concipe fcedus.

8e /ueAcuj'cw, - puraque in veste sacerdos. —

Trj re Kal 'HeAtV Ail 8' T^ue?s otao- JEn. xii. ver. 13.

' jitei/ &\\ov. Setigerae foetum suis, intonsamque

"A£eT6 8e Upidpoto /3ir)i>, otyp" opKta bidentem

rd/j.vT) Attulit, admovitque pecus flagranti-

Avrbs.— Iliad. T. ver. 103, &.c.' bus aris.— ibid., 1(>9, &c.

K-hpvKes 8' ai/a &<TTV 6fuv (f>fpoj/ SpKia Talibus inter se firmabant fcedera

Tricrrd, dictis

"Apvf Suco Kai olvov evQpova. — ibid., Conspectu in medio procerum ; turn

245. rite sacratas

^H, Kal airb ffTo/j-d^ovs apvuv ra/xe In flammam jugulant pecudes, et

j/7jAe'i' xaA/cy' viscera vivis

Olvov 8' e/c Kprjrripos a^vaad/uLfvoi " Eripiunt, cumulantque oneratis lan-

'iv cibus aras. — ibid., 212.

174 THE EUCHARIST iNECESSARY AS

CHAP, profess to God and the world our resolution of following
— ' — whatever makes for peace, and for keeping the Christian
Covenant and Communion entire and unbroken. And by
this means it comes to pass, that we cannot transgress the
laws of justice and charity toward men, but we must at the
same time break covenant and communion with God. And
it is certainly necessary, that men should be under the most
powerful restraints from malice and ill-will, and under the
strongest ties to mutual friendship and affection ; especially,
when not only the peace of the world but the eternal
salvation of their souls does so much depend upon this
article of religion.

Christ by St. Paul informs us, that all good Christians are c ' One
rist design- Bread" or loaf; and gives this reason for it, that " we are all
perfeS°St partakers of that One Bread" in the Eucharist. For all the
amon°- several masses of Bread, offered in the several congregations
Christians, of Christians dispersed throughout the world, are all in the
Mystery but One Body of Christ, and all the single Christians
and congregations but One Church, represented on this ac
count by the Apostle as " One Loaf;" and, therefore, in assist
ing at this Sacrifice and offering this One Loaf to God, we
offer not only the Sacramental Body of Christ, but His mysti
cal Body the Church ; and are thereby understood to profess,
that we look on all good Christians as united to Christ and
each other, as the several grains of wheat are kneaded into
one loaf; and that therefore we desire the same blessings
and favours for all other members of Christ's Church, as we
do for ourselves. " The Church offers itself through Christ
in the Eucharist," says St. Augustine1. " If any one offer
Wine only, then the Blood of Christ is without us ; but if
the Water be alone, the people is without Christ m." And
thus our Saviour has not only commanded the Christian to
love his neighbour as himself, but has rivetted the practice
of this duty into the most solemn office of His religion. And
he who does not wish and pray for the same spiritual bless
ings for all other Christians, that he does for himself, cannot
perform his part in the Christian Sacrifice. And upon the
whole it must be owned, that the Divine Wisdom of the Son
of God has most illustriously displayed itself in the con-

1 A. p. 34. Ap. m m. 8. p. 13. Ap.

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 175

trivance and institution of this most excellent Sacrifice, and SECT.
especially in rendering the use of it necessary for our com- -

munion with God, and by making our communion with
each other in this most solemn manner a very important
article of that Covenant, which is renewed in the Sacrifice of
the Eucharist.

IV. There is a fourth question still remaining on this Whether
head ; and that is, whether the Eucharist can truly be conse- necessary 6
crated, when it is not offered to God ? It is certain all sacri- ^ration"^
fices were ever consecrated by being presented at the altar, ^ Eucha~
and being offered on it in whole or in part; and on this
account the flesh of the beasts that were sacrificed was called
" holy" or " most holy ;" by this means they deserved the title
of being called " the Bread" or food " of the Lord11." I have
formerly shewed, that the primitive Church did offer the
symbols of Christ's Body and Blood to God, in order to
their being made the Body and Blood of Christ, not only
in figure, as they were before, but in life and power. And
since Christ declares the Bread to be " His Body given" for
us; therefore we cannot in reason doubt but that He had
given or offered it to God, though His manner of doing it, or
the words He used on this occasion, are not recorded in the
Gospels. For the first fifteen hundred0 years after Christ

n See Part I. p. [331 — 334.] 2. Wherever the words of oblation

0 Mons. Pfaffy observes, that "there are wanting, there the whole Canon

are several Offices in the Gothic Missal, Missae, or, however, the Words of Insti-

in which there is no mention of a Sacri- tution, are not to be found; excepting

fee or Oblation." p. 332. And there is the sixth and thirty-seventh Offices, and

thus much of truth in what he says, the ninth Offices, where I noted the Ob-

that fifty- seven Offices out of eighty- lation to be very doubtful and imperfect.

one have not a proper form of Oblation There are no less than fifty- seven Offices

in the usual place, viz., between the in which all the three parts of Consecra-

Words of Institution and the Prayer of tion, viz., the Words of Institution, the

Invocation : there are but ten Offices Oblation, the Prayer for the Holy Spirit

that have a just form of Oblation, viz., or Divine Benediction, are not to be

the 8, 11, 12, 20, 27, 36, 65, 77, 79, 80; found ; these fifty-seven are all that

there are nine more that have some- have not been particularly by me num-

thing that looks like an Oblation, but bered in this note, excepting the two

not express and clear, viz., the 3, 4, 5, first, and the last, which are almost or

17, 21, 28, 75, 76, 78. This seems a altogether wanting. Upon the whole,

great objection against what I have it is evident that these Offices, as pub-

here and elsewhere advanced, but is lished by Father Mabillon, are very

in reality nothing at all to the purpose. defective, and that too in the most es-

For sential parts.

1. Wherever the proper Oblation is 3. Where the Words of Institution

wanting, there what Mons. Pfaffy calls are inserted, yet they are not set down

the Prayer of Consecration, on which at large, but thus, Qui pridie quam

he lays so great a stress, is wanting pateretur, &c. From this we have a

also. demonstration, that the defects of par-

176

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, there is, I conceive, not one single instance of a Church,
that thought the Elements consecrated without offering them

ii.

ticular Offices were to be supplied ; and
that either

(1.) By some general directions at
the beginning or ending of the book ;
and the original MS. in the Queen of
Sweden's library might at first con
tain such directions, though they are
now worn away ; for Mabillon lets us
know that several leaves are wanting
at the beginning and the end, and in
deed the two first Offices and the first
part of the third, and the last (except
ing the title, and twenty or thirty
words) are now lost. The general di
rections might be either in the first or
last of these Offices ; and one would
rather think they were in the last, be
cause the title of it still remains, and
is, Missa cotidiana Romensis ; which
seems to import, that it contained the
common orders of the Communion
Service, where provision had not been
made by the several foregoing Offices.

(2.) Or else, the defect of the par
ticular Offices was supplied by the
memory of the Priest ; and it is rea
sonable to believe, that the Priests in
that age could as readily supply the
defect of the Oblation and Prayer for
the benediction of the Spirit, as they
could that of the Words of Institution ;
and since they all follow one after the
other, therefore the same item, or ' &c.'
might serve to remind the Priest of all
three. The book called Micrologus,
published in the eleventh century, does
much countenance this notion. It
contains an account of Divine Offices
in the Church of France, where this
Gothic Missal too was used in the
ninth and tenth centuries. The twenty-
third chapter of this book contains
Brevis descriptio celebrandae Missae ;
and after the Words of Institution, it
directs the Priest immediately to say,
Unde et memores nos, Domine, servi
Tui — Christi Filii Tui Domini Deinos-
tri, tarn beatae Passionis, necnon et ab
inferis Resurrectionis, sed et in ccelum
gloriosae Ascensionis, ofTerimus prae-
clarae Majestati Tuse de Tuis donis ac
datis — Hostiam puram, Hostiam sanc-
tam, &c. And in the eleventh chapter
you have also these words, Compositd
Oblatione in Altari, dicit Sacerdos hone
Orationem, [juxta Gallicanum Ordi-
nem;] Veni, Sanctificator Omnipotens,
aeterne Deus, benedic hoc Sacrificium,
&c. Deinde ante Altare inclinalus di-
cat lianc, Orationem, non ex aliquo Or-

dine, sed ex ecclesiastica consuetudine ;
Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas, hanc Obla-
tionem, quam Tibi offerimus in me-
moriam Passionis, &c. By this it ap
pears, that there were certain Forms of
Oblation used " by the custom of the
Church, not read out of any Service-
Book." Father Mabillon inclines to
think that the Priest trusted his mer
mory as to these Forms, which were
then, says he, "commonly known;"
and he cites, upon this occasion, the
first clause out of the twenty-third
chapter of Micrologus, as above. See
his Preface to his three books, De Li-
turgia Gallicana, sect. 13.

(3.) Whatever the reason was for
omitting the Forms of Oblation in their
proper place, it is certain it was not
done upon an opinion that the Oblation
was not necessary ; for the compilers
of these Offices do several times express
their sentiment, that Jesus Christ in
stituted the Sacrifice ; Father Mabillon
mentions some of these places in the
tenth page of his Preface. I will give
my reader but one taken out of the
twenty-eighth Office [i. e. of the Gothic
Missal, p. 237.] in which, if there
be an Oblation, it is directed to God
the Son, contrary to all the sentiments
of the primitive Church ; but in a
previous exhortation you have these
words ; Sacrosanctam, fratres dilectis-
simi, hodierna die inchoandae Paschae
sollennitatem, ac salutiferam Dominicae
immolationis effigiem in Sacrificio spi-
ritali transfusam — celebrantes — Chris
tum deprecemur ; Qui haec in sacri
Corporis et Sanguinis Sui Oblatione
benedicere et sanctificare dignatus est;
ita offerentium famulorum Suorum
Munera Oblata benedicat ; ut per in-
lustrationem Spiritus Sancti, deferen-
tibus nuntiis, odor suavitatis ascendat.
Per Dominum, &c. It is in the Office
for Maundy Thursday. — [Missa in
Ccena Domini.]

I say nothing of Mons. Pfaffy's ob
jection against the Oblation " as made
before the Consecration" in these and
all other ancient Liturgies ; he speaks
according to the sentiments of the Lu
therans, who attribute the Consecration
chiefly to the Prayer for the Divine
Benediction, though sometimes they
allow that the Words of Institution do
also contribute to it. The truth is, the
ancient Church believed the Consecra
tion to be performed by all three, viz.,

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 177

to God. In the Liturgies of the middle ages, there are forms SECT.
of Oblation scattered through the whole Office ; and the -1 —

symbols are commonly offered two or three times at least ;
but all of them agree in making the solemn Oblation of the
Bread and Wine, after repeating the Words of Institution,
whereby the elements were, in the words of Christ, appointed
to be His Body and Blood, and before the Invocation of the
Holy Spirit. But the most ancient Liturgy now extant con
tains no other Oblation but this last mentioned ; therefore
I humbly recommend it to the serious consideration of all
judicious Clergymen and laymen, whether this Form does
not deserve to be received by all Churches, until one more
ancient can be discovered. Though I am in my own mind
persuaded, that if we had the very words in which St. Peter
and St. Paul consecrated the Eucharist, it would not differ
in substance from that which I am now mentioning. The
reader has it in the Appendix to this Vol. II. No. I. In the
mean time let every pious well-instructed Christian pray
with good king Hezekiahp, "The good Lord grant atonement
for every heart that directs itself to seek the Lord God of
their fathers, though not according to the purity of" the
Sacrament or Holy Institution.

Grotiusq has a singular fancy, that our Saviour, being Grotius,

obliged to keep the Passover the day before that on which it ^n9/ *hat
fell, because that was the day assigned for His crucifixion, the Pass-
could not have the lamb offered as a sacrifice in the temple fS only.
by a priest ; and therefore kept the Passover only as a feast.
This is improbable in the highest degree, especially because
our Saviour had declared, that He would fulfil the Law to
the least jot and tittle. But if He did not solemnize the
Passover by offering the lamb as a sacrifice, it is evident He

the Words of Institution, the Ohlation, Wine : whereas all the ancient Forms

and Invocation. But I must further of Invocation pray, that the Bread

take leave to observe, that all the an- and Wine may become the Body and

cient Forms of Invocation that I ever Blood ; or have words to that effect.
saw are direct evidences against the P 2 Chron. xxx. 18, 19. Secundtim

Lutheran doctrine, which is, that the LXX [Kuptos ayaQbs e|tAcur0a> virfp

Bread and Wine are not the Body and 7ra<r7js Kapfiias KaTcvOwovarjs eKfarrjcrai

Blood of Christ, which we receive in Kvpiov rbv ®ebv r&v irarfpuv avrtov,

the Sacrament, but that the natural Kal ov /caret TTJI/ a.-yvtia.v T&V

Body and Blood of our Saviour, which et Hebraicam veritatem.
they assert to be diffused through the •> Grot, in Matt. xxvi. 18.
whole world, are united to the Bread and

178 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS

CHAP, did not keep the Law. It is true, the Jews do keep the Pass-

: over thus by halves in their present dispersion, I mean, as a

feast only, not as a sacrifice. Grotius owns that this was an
imperfect Passover, because the oblation was wanting. The
Jews are forced to maim their Passover; they want the
altar, at which alone they were to offer sacrifice, I mean,
that at Jerusalem : and Christian Princes would scarce allow
them the liberty of a public solemn Paschal sacrifice. I can
only desire the prayers of all my readers, (that are convinced
of this great truth, that the Eucharist was by Christ insti
tuted to be the continual Sacrifice of His Church,) that God
in His goodness would dispose the hearts of all governors of
His people to restore the use and practice of the Christian
Oblation; that so, from the rising of the sun to the going
down thereof, the Peace-Offering may be offered to God.
The Sacri- I am sensible that many men, who have Religion much at
Eucharist heart, do think, that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist lessens
?mpair°[he ^ne va^ue °f the Great Sacrifice, and intrenches upon the all-
merits of sufficient merits of Christ's most precious Blood. And if I
Blood. could discern any just grounds for such an opinion, I should
think it my duty to apply the same or greater zeal for the
abolition and annulling of this Sacrifice, than T have hitherto
shewed for the re-establishment of it. But, certainly, Jesus
Christ Himself is the best judge of what makes most for the
honour of That Sacrifice which He offered. He well knows
that nothing could more effectually raise That Sacrifice to
such a just degree of esteem and dignity as it deserves, than
to have the memorial of It perpetually repeated in that devout
and solemn manner, that He Himself at first offered It ; and
that by obliging His Church to make her most important
addresses to God in and by this Sacrifice, He took the most
proper course to engrave this truth on the minds of men,
that we are to expect no blessings to ourselves but through
His Body and Blood. If indeed by sacrificing an ox or sheep
only, or any other creature, that was not His Flesh and Blood
in that manner, as the Bread and Wine is, we hoped to pre
vail with God, and to procure the mercies that we want;
then there might be some pretence for saying, that by our
own sacrifice we undervalued the Sacrifice of Christ; but
since we offer nothing in the Eucharist, but what He, by His

THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 179

own institution and deputation, hath made His Body and SECT.

Blood ; and since, by offering this, we do not pretend to add

to the merits of His Death, but only to draw down to our
selves, and apply to our own souls, the blessings which He
purchased by dying for us ; this is a full demonstration, that
the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is so far from abating the value
of His Blood, that nothing can more heighten and exalt It ;
for by this we fully declare our belief, that there is no other
name under heaven, whereby we can be saved, but that of
Jesus ; that His Passion is the centre of all our hopes. If,
indeed, Christ Jesus could have applied the merits of His
Death to every single believer, at the same time that He
offered up the Great Sacrifice, then it must be confessed, that
all further sacrifice had been perfectly needless and super
fluous : but this was impossible to be done, because very
great numbers of men were not then born ; who were yet in
future ages to be members of His Church, and who could
not be saved but by having the mercies, which He purchased
by His Death, applied to their own persons. Infinitely many
sins were to be committed in ages to come, as Christ knew
full well, and which therefore could not then be pardoned,
because they were not committed; there would be many
spiritual wants to be supplied; wants of men that were not
in being, when our Saviour suffered. And that Christ might
be a Saviour to men of all ages to the end of the world, that
their pardon might be sealed, and that a means of relief
might always be at hand for those that stood in need of it,
Christ instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist as the main
channel, by which all Divine graces and favours should be
constantly communicated to His Church, and applied to the
souls of particular persons in such a manner, that it might
evidently appear, that His Death and sufferings are the
spring-head of all the blessings we receive; for the most
powerful, the only Sacrifice we have, is that of His Sacra
mental Body and Blood.

180 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP.
II.

CHAP. II. SECT. III.

Of the necessity of a frequent Eucharist.

WHEN I speak of the necessity of a frequent Eucharist,
this implies two things :

1. That the Church take due care, that it be often cele
brated ;

2. That it is the duty of private Christians frequently to
join in the celebrating and receiving it.

Pastors 1. It is necessary that the Church take due care that it

toadmi- be often celebrated. And this care belongs chiefly to the
Eucharist. Bishops and Priests ; for the people cannot receive it oftener
than the Priests administer it. It is hard to say, whether
the sin of the Church of Home in preserving the daily Sacri
fice without a daily Communion, or the sin of some other
Churches in laying aside both the daily Sacrifice and the daily
Communion, be more inexcusable. To maim the ordinances
of God, by making it a Sacrifice without a feast, is what can
never be defended ; no more can the rareness of Communions
in some Reformed Churches.

The Lutherans, I am well assured, in this particular do
excel all other Protestants; for they have a Communion
every Sunday and holiday throughout the year. The Church
of Rome makes the same excuse for her private Masses, that
we do for the rareness or unfrequency of our Communions.
The Council of Trent r expresses her wishes, that all the
faithful who are present at Mass would communicate in that
Sacrament ; and it is commonly said, that our Church orders
the greatest part of the Communion-office to be read on
Sundays and holidays, although there be no Communion, to
intimate her earnest desire that the people would be pre
vailed upon to be more frequent in receiving the Sacrament.
What the Council of Trent says concerning the desire of their

r Sess. 22. De Sacrific. Missae, cap. 6. tali etiam Eucharistise perceptione com-

OptaretquidemsacrosanctaSynodus,ut municarent. [Concilium Tridentinum,

in singulis Missis fideles adstantes non Ed. Paris, 1823.]
solum spirit uali aftectu, sed Sacramen-

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 181

Church that the people would receive the Sacrament oftener, SECT,
seems mere colour and pretence ; it is certain, the Clergy of —
that Church have the people so much at their disposal, that
they might have good numbers of daily communicants, if
they did not make it their business to discountenance frequent
Communion. On the other hand it must be owned, that the
generality of our Clergy do often and earnestly press the
people to be more frequent in this duty ; and therefore I do
by no means despair of a cure for this evil, especially, if my
Lords the Bishops would please to call on the Clergy to use
their most diligent application to their several congregations
in order to bring them, or a good number of them, to a
weekly Communion. And I can see no reason to doubt
but that, if they could but prevail on ten or half that
number at the first, they would by degrees find that the
company would be always growing by the prudent care and
encouragement of their several pastors ; and, by this means,
we should by degrees imitate the primitive Church in the
frequency of her Communion, as well as in other particulars.
It is well known, that about forty years ago the Sacrament
was generally administered but three or four times a year even
in most of our populous places, and in our very Cathedrals
but once a month. The very same industry and application,
which has in some measure already rectified this miscarriage,
would still bring us nearer to the perfection of the Aposto
lical age.

2. And, certainly, the people ought to look on themselves And the
to be as much bound in duty frequently to join in the cele-
brating and receiving this Sacrament, as the Priests to
administer it, I do not find either in Scripture or early
antiquity, that there were any laymen who thought them
selves at liberty to abstain or receive it until Tertullian's time;
who3 speaks of very many that turned their back on the
Eucharist on the Station-days (that is, Wednesdays and
Fridays), because they fancied that by taking the Sacrament
they should break their fast : but it is plain, that Tertullian
himself did not approve this practice, and that he judged the
Eucharist would rather raise than slacken men's devotions on
the Station-days. It is deplorable to consider the great cold-

8 i. p. 8. Ap.

182 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, ness and indifference, which reigns now among the generality

'• - of Christians of all sorts, as to this great duty of communi

cating: and though I have never met with any Divine of

note, either in my reading or conversation, who has not been

sensible that the backwardness of the people in this respect

is both a sign and cause of the decay of Christian piety ; yet

I cannot say, that a due degree of zeal and persuasion has

been used for the cure of so great an evil. And there are

some opinions and prejudices, countenanced by Divines as

well as others, which will be a perpetual bar to keep men at

a distance from the Lord's Table, or however to render them

less frequent and forward in their approaches to it.

Spiritual If we will speak the truth, we shall find, that the Divines

Christ's of the Church of Rome have themselves furnished the people

sucn notions as do effectually dispose them to be cold
false notion. an(j indifferent as to the point of receiving the Sacrament.
For it is a prevailing doctrine in that Church, that the by
standers at Mass may spiritually receive the Body and Blood
of Christ; and this is supposed by the Council of Trent* in
the same chapter, where they profess their wishes that the
people would more often Sacramentally communicate. They
elsewhere sayu, that Spiritual Communion consists "in a desire
of eating the Heavenly Bread laid before them, and in a lively
faith." But, sure, all will agree with me, that a desire of eat
ing, which yet does not carry them so far as to satisfy this
spiritual appetite, even when the Heavenly Bread is laid before
them, must be very imperfect and insincere. I have else
where shewed that, when men do in earnest wish for the
Sacrament but cannot possibly obtain it, God takes the will
for the deed ; and, therefore, in this case, men may be said to
receive Christ's Body in a spiritual manner. But the Trent
Divines suppose that a man has it in his power to receive it
with his mouth, though for some reason he chooses to abstain,
and that such a man does spiritually receive the Sacrament;
which I cannot conceive, except you will say that these men

1 Ubi supra. Illse quoque Missae cuerunt — alios tantum spiritualiter

(viz. privatae) communes censeri de- (edere), illos nimirum, qui voto prepo

tent ; partim, quod in eis populus spi- situm ilium Ccelestem Panem edentes,

ritualiter communicet, &c. fide viva, quse per dilectionem opera -

u Sess. 12. cap. 8. De usu admira- tur, fructum Ejuset utilitatem sentiunt.
bill hujus Sacramenti. — Patres — do-

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 183

do indeed come with holy hunger after this Food, but that SECT.

their appetite is damped by some mistakes and prejudices

infused into them by the false guides of that Church. And
alas ! to what purpose was it for the Council of Trent to wish
that the people would frequently communicate, when at the
same time they help them to an excuse for not doing it, by
pretending that they do spiritually communicate, while they
are only by-standers at the Sacrament ? They that are most
opposite to the Papists in other respects have, in truth, gone
further than the Council of Trent in this particular ; I mean,
by asserting that, not only by a desire of the Sacrament but
by any act of faith or devotion, men do spiritually eat the
Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ. It signifies little for
Clergymen to spur men to the Communion, if at the same
time they check them too, by assuring them that they had as
good forbear ; for that all the spiritual advantages to be re
ceived in the Sacrament may be had by an act of faith or good
works. These mistakes proceed from the misunderstanding
our Saviour in His discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John,
which I have elsewhere x largely proved to be meant of the
Eucharist. It is evident, that the Council of Trent y did not
believe that context to speak strictly of Sacramental eating
and drinking; and it was this that carried them into the
imaginary conceit of receiving Christ's Flesh and Blood in a
spiritual manner. Torre2, a notable Divine, insisted on the
revoking of that decree, which left this discourse of our
Saviour to be understood as every man pleased; for he
asserted with good reason, that it was to be understood of
communicating in the Sacrament : but he could not be heard ;
especially because it was apprehended that, if John vi. were
taken as meant of the Eucharist, it must follow, that it was
absolutely necessary that the people must communicate in
both kinds; for our Saviour declares it to be altogether as
dangerous to omit the drinking of His Blood as the eating
His Flesh. But this loose notion concerning the sixth of
John prevailed not only in the Council of Trent, but long

1 See Part I. p. [457,] &c. utcumque juxta varias sanctorum Pa-

y Sess. 21. cap. 1. Sed neque ex trum et Doctorum interpretationes in-

sermone illo, apud Joannem sexto, telligatur, &c.

recte colligitur, utriusque speciei Com- » See Father Paul's Hist, of this

munionem a Domino praeceptam esse, Council, hook vi.

184 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, before; and most of those Divines, who began the Reforma-
- tion of religion, brought this error along with them from the
Church of Rome, as they did several others; and by this
means the generality of Protestants have been led into the
same mistake. None that believed John vi. to be meant of
the Eucharist, could ever have thought it sufficient to receive
the Sacrament but once a year, which has been the settled
judgment of the Church of Rome for many ages past. Calvin
saysa, "The devil was the author of that law." It is certain,
that one chief motive for the passing of it was the opinion,
that John vi. was not meant of the Sacrament but of some
other notional manner of eating the Mesh and drinking the
Blood of Christ.

It is my present business to shew, that it is necessary not
only to administer and to receive the Eucharist, but to do it
very frequently. And the very same reasons, which served
to prove the necessity of it in general, and as it is a Sacrifice
in particular, will also effectually prove the necessity of doing
it very often. These reasons, as before shewed, are
Christ de- 1. Because it is a Divine Institution, and such an insti-
quent Com- tution as is to be performed not once only in our lives, as
Baptism, nor once in the year only, as the Jewish Passover,
but is frequently to be repeated ; and our Saviour, when He
first instituted this feast upon a sacrifice, sufficiently intimates
this, by saying, "Do" or offer "this, as oft as ye drink it;"
and, "as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup."
But He does this more fully and with greater force in His
discourse on the Eucharist in the sixth of St. John's Gospel :
for I have else where b shewed, that the following verses of
that chapter are thus to be rendered, viz., ver. 49, " Your
fathers fed upon manna in the wilderness, and are dead;"
ver. 50, " This is the Bread, which cometh down from Heaven,
that a man may feed thereon, and not die ;" ver. 51, " If any
man feed on this Bread, he shall live for ever;" ver. 53,
" Except ye feed on the Flesh of the Son of Man, and make
His Blood your drink, ye have no life in you;" ver. 54,
"Whoso feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh My Blood his

a Institut. [lib. iv. cap. xvii. sect. 46. cunqtie tandem ministerio invecta fu-

" Et sane haec consuetude, quae semel erit."

quotannis communicare jubet, certis- b See Part I. p. [532,] &c,

simum est diaboli inventum ; cujus-

mumon.

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 185

drink, hath Eternal Life;" ver. 56, " He that feedeth on My SECT.
Flesh, and maketh My Blood his drink, dwelleth in Me, and —
I in him ;" ver. 58, " This is that Bread which came down
from Heaven, not as your fathers fed on manna, and are
dead; he that feedeth on this Bread shall live for ever."
From this it is evident to a demonstration, that it is not any
occasional eating and drinking, not a receiving the Sacra
ment once upon a death-bed, or once or twice a year, but a
constant "feeding on it" and "making it our drink," that
Christ requires of us. Manna was the daily food of the
Israelites in the wilderness; and it is evident by this dis
course of our Saviour, that He intended His Sacramental
Flesh and Blood to be the constant spiritual provision of
His Church. Therefore the most primitive Christians lived in
the daily use and practice of it, and called and esteemed it
their "daily Bread." They, who dwelt near the place of
public assembly, did every day join in this holy ordinance.
They did not find it inconsistent with their worldly business
to spend an hour or more every day in the week in attending
on this most beneficial Divine service. They kept their
assemblies before day, and by this means they endeavoured
not only to meet with the greater secrecy, that they might
not be discovered by their persecutors, but also to leave time
enough for their worldly trade and affairs. And, certainly, a
daily Communion duly celebrated was the intention of our
Saviour, when He speaks of making it our food, if we will
take Him in the most strict sense; and they, who do of
choice and from a principle of conscience daily administer
and receive the Eucharist, they do in the most perfect manner
comply with the will of our Lord. And we ought to pray
and endeavour that the whole Church of Christ may be by
degrees restored to this state of perfection. I apprehend,
that a weekly Communion is the most that we can at present
hope to attain ; and, by going thus far, we shall come up to
the practice of the generality of Christians in the second
and third centuries, though not of the first Apostolical age.
It is observable, that our Saviour and the writers of the New
Testament have nowhere directly and plainly declared, how
often every Church or congregation shall assemble together,
how often men should hear sermons, or even pray in private;

186 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, therefore we are not to wonder, that the certain time of com-
- — municating is nowhere expressly determined. And, indeed,
if we consider the various circumstances of Churches and of
private men, we shall find that it is next to an impossibility
to fix any certain stated rule in this case, which may fit all
ages and places and conditions of men. Therefore, when
Christ bids us to " pray always," when St. James exhorts us
to be " swift to hear," and when we are called upon in the
sixth chapter of St. John to "feed on the Flesh of Christ" in
the Eucharist, the safest way of understanding those texts is,
to look upon them as laws obliging us to perform these duties
as often as possibly we can, without doing any notable damage
or inconvenience to ourselves as to our temporal concerns.
He, indeed, that is a layman cannot communicate oftenerthan
the Priest, under whom he lives, will administer it ; and if,
therefore, he never willingly omits an opportunity of receiving,
he can have nothing further to answer for. If the Priest be
tardy or backward in this principal part of his office, he alone
must bear the blame of his neglect. If his hands are tied
by the laws or customs of the Church to which he belongs,
or by the obstinacy of the people, who persist in refusing to
join with him in this ordinance, then the Priest is innocent ;
and the guilt of neglecting or rarely celebrating the Com
munion falls upon the governors of the Church for not re
pealing or altering such laws as restrain or discountenance
frequent Communion ; or upon the people, who withstand his
persuasions and shew an aversion to their duty. If the law
or custom of any Church do not allow of a weekly Com
munion, it is certain, that law needs amendment, and that
custom is not to be endured. If the laws of the Church do
admit of weekly Communions, but the Priest or people or
both do rather choose to follow the custom of monthly or
quarterly Communions, they who are guilty of this neglect
must remember, that they are to give account of themselves
for passing a slight on this Divine Institution.

Frequent II. The necessity of frequent Communion will appear, if
necessary, we consider the Eucharist as the proper peculiar worship of
thisTthe the Christian Church. St. Paul assures us, that the old
most pro- Church, consisting of " the twelve tribes, did instantly
perform their service or worship night and day;" that is,

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 187

the continual morning and evening sacrifice was without SECT,
intermission offered by the priests in the temple, and the —

shew-bread was perpetually placed before the Lord. And ship.
what was done by the priests in behalf of the whole body of ^ctsxxvl-
the Jewish people and at their expence, is spoken of by the Numb.
Apostle as a thing done by themselves. Now, certainly, the ExSuxxix
new people of God, the Christian Church, must not be desti- 42'
tute of a continual sacrifice, no more than the old one. As
for the sacrifice of private prayer and praise, this was as
constantly offered by all single pious Jews, as it can be by
Christians ; but this is not the Sacrifice of the Church, this
is not the proper public worship of Christ's mystical Body.
'The continual Sacrifice' was the title of old given to the
Eucharist by St. Clement0, the fellow-labourer with St. Paul,
and by Chrysostomd above three hundred years after him ;
and, certainly, it ought to be esteemed and practised as such
in all ages, at least in all Cathedral churches, and wherever a
competent number of communicants can be found.

It is true, the main body of the people of the Jews were Christians
not obliged to attend the public worship above three times be more °
in the year ; and what they did on the Sabbath-days in
their synagogues was not the proper peculiar worship
of the Jewish Church. No other worship but that per- were.
formed at the altar in. Jerusalem was ordained by the
Law of God. Synagogues were mere human inventions;
and the devotions there offered were a will-worship, though
very good and commendable. There is no mention of these Psalm
places of assembly till the time of Asaph the Psalmist ; not
the Asaph who lived in David's time, but he who lamented
the devastations of the temple under Nebuchadnezzar or
Antiochus. They could not personally join in eating of their
sacrifices but at the three great feasts, or when they came of
their own accord to offer some occasional devotions. At
other times they could join in the public worship, as they
did, only by praying with their faces toward Jerusalem, at
the time when the continual burnt-offering was laid on the
altar, and the incense was burning ; but the Christian Sacri
fice is to be consumed by the Priest and people feasting

c See Part I. p. [152,] &c. iii. torn. xi. p. 23. Ed. Ben.] he calls it

d In Epist. ad Ephes. [cap. i. Homil.

188 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, together ; or at least by a number of Clergymen assisting at

'• this holy ordinance, which was the case at the first institution

of it by our blessed Lord ; for He had then none but His
Apostles present with Him. And all good Christians cannot
but wish that, wherever there is a body of Clergymen living
within a convenient distance., they would combine together
in order to restore the Daily Sacrifice and Communion ; and
there is no reason to doubt but that the people, by the in
fluence of their example, would gradually be wrought into
a zeal and holy emulation in this most peculiar Christian
worship. Chrysostom, in the place before cited, does most
passionately lament the backwardness of the people in receiv
ing the Sacrament, at the beginning of the fifth century. This
has ever since been a growing evil, and especially here in
England. In the late Great Rebellion, the Eucharist was
wholly disused and laid aside in many populous places ; this
was one signal instance of the glorious Reformation intended
by the faction which then prevailed. And it is very grievous
to consider, what vast numbers of grown men and women do
still die amongst us without ever receiving the Sacrament at
all, and yet are looked upon and treated as persons that
lived and died in the communion of our Church. In the
Church of Rome, he is a good Catholic, who receives once a
year; and, among the Greeks6, he is esteemed a Christian of
the highest rank, who does it three or four times in twelve
months ; and the Lutherans, I know, greatly complain of
the tardiness of their people as to this great duty. God give
to all Christians a sense of their sinful neglect of this most
excellent and singular worship ! And I persuade myself, that
if they would once permit themselves to be convinced of this
great truth, that the Eucharist is the only proper peculiar
public worship of the Church of Christ, they would mend
their pace, and be more ready and frequent in this Gospel-
service. For how is it possible, that men who are in earnest
Christians, can answer it to God and their own consciences,
when the question shall be seriously put to them, how they
dare live in a long and wilful neglect of the Christian wor-

e See Christoph. Angelas' s Enchi- ^ Sis, % rpis, ^ Tfrpditis rov fviavrov
ridion, cap. 22. [Ed. Cantab. 1619.] ^raAa/j.^dveiv rb T'I^IOV 2w/j.a /cal
01 €vyfv€~is ru>v 'EAX^i/wf ct7ra|, rov Kvpiov.

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 189

ship? He would scarce have been thought worthy of the SECT.
name of an Israelite under the Law, who wholly forbore going - -
to the temple at the three yearly feasts ; or who, if he did go,
yet thought it sufficient to hear the Law read or the glosses
or discourses of the learned Doctors upon it, or only joined
in the psalms or prayers that were there sung or rehearsed ;
but refused to perform his part in the sacrifices there to be
offered, which was the most principal and perfect part of the
service for which the temple was built, and which made way
for the acceptance of all the other devotions which the Law
required. Just such a Christian is he, who is constant in
other less valuable parts of Divine worship, but chooses never
or very rarely to keep consort with the Christian Church in this
most necessary and important branch of the Gospel-service.

This will be of greater weight still, when it is considered Especially,
that the reason of Christ's making the Eucharist the principal here we
worship of His Church was this, namely, because it is the

commemoration of His Death. For the Death of Christ being De^h ac-

0 cording to

the greatest and most admirable Providence that ever did or His own
could betide us, the foundation of all our hopes and of our W1
claim to the Divine favour, therefore it was not only proper
but necessary, that the commemoration of it should be our
principal Christian worship. And it is for the same reason
necessary, that we should be frequent in doing it, not only
because by this means we express our gratitude for the
greatest benefit which God ever vouchsafed to mankind ;
but because we have no other thing to plead with God, where
by to move Him to bestow His mercies on us. And, there
fore, he who seldom communicates is one who is seldom
thankful to God for His redemption of mankind by Christ
Jesus ; he is one who seldom makes his addresses to God in
the most powerful and prevailing manner, that is, by shewing
forth Christ's Death to God, as the most prevailing means to
obtain His blessing. It is true, a man may by meditation
remember Christ's Death, and may in his prayers give God
thanks for it, and plead the merits of it in behalf of himself
and others ; but then he does not remember it in that solemn
manner that Christ requires, nor does he offer his praises to
God, and allege the merits of Christ's Blood in that way
whicluChrist enjoins : and, in things of so great moment, we

190

THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, are not to take the course which seems best to our own
— fancies, but to follow that method to which Christ hath
directed us. And it is certain, that He did never hint to
us any desire of our remembering His Death but in the
Eucharist only ; and since the commemoration of His Death
is so reasonable and so necessary, and that the doing of it in
any other way is mere will-worship, and since we must often
have just occasion to plead the merits of it with God, in
order to procure the good effects of it ; more need not be
said to prove that it is necessary to live in the frequent
use of the Eucharist, as it is the principal worship of the
Christian Church and the commemoration of our Saviour's
Death.

III. We may be convinced of the great necessity of the
frequent use of the Eucharist, if we consider it as a means
of covenanting, and communicating with God and each
other.

Frequent By the Gospel-Covenant only, we are capable of salvation ;

necessary, and therefore it greatly concerns us to be well assured, that
we duly lay hold on this Covenant, and renew our claims, and
repair the breaches of it ; and this can be done in and by the
Eucharist only. Herein we do in the most perfect manner
communicate with God and His Church, as has been shewed
in the two foregoing Sections. Now this Communion with
God and His Church does not consist in one transient
action, but in the frequent and constant repeating this
action. No man is reputed to be a member of a family,
because he does sometimes occasionally or accidentally sit
down at the same table and feast with them. Nothing but a
continual taking his meals, or (to say the least) a very fre
quent eating with them, is sufficient to this purpose; and
therefore none ought to think himself of " the household of
God," but he who does on every opportunity eat the ' ' Bread
of God" together with his fellow-servants.

The Communion of Christ with His Church, and of the
members of this Church with each other, is in the Scripture
compared to that of a branch with the stock or tree, and of a
limb with the body. Now it is certain, that, if the branch
cease to partake of the juice or sap, it forthwith dies and is
fit for nothing but the fire ; and the limb, that does not par

as it is a

means of
covenant
ing with
God.

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 191

take of the blood and spirits which circulate in the body, SECT.

becomes perfectly useless and an encumbrance. And from — — —

this we are given to understand, that our Communion with

God and His Church is obstructed and annulled by any

wilful neglect of the means appointed for maintenance of

this communion ; and of these means, I suppose, all will allow

the Eucharist to be the principal. The union between Christ

and His Church, and of Christians between each other, does

not consist in now and then accidentally meeting together,

but in a perpetual uninterrupted conjunction. It is true,

some allowance must always be made for parables and similes ;

it cannot be expected, that men should always, night and day

(in the literal sense), be employed in this or any other duty ;

but, certainly, for a man to pretend to be of Christ's Body,

and yet not to join in that action, by which the unity of this

Body is to be preserved, once a week or even once a month,

is such a Communion as may rather be called a ' separation.'

And if " we are made One Body by being partakers of the One

Loaf," if "we are made to drink into the One Spirit" by

partaking of the Cup in the Eucharist, as St. Paul plainly i Cor. x.

teaches us ; then, certainly, those Christians have a very sad 17 ' xu" 13'

account to give of themselves, who choose for the most part

or very often to turn their backs upon this Divine ordinance,

and so wilfully interrupt the Communion betwixt God and

their own souls, betwixt the Church of Christ and themselves.

And the case is very plain ; for if " he, who feedeth on the j0hn vi. 56.

Flesh of Christ, dwelleth in Him," then he, who seldom or

never eats It, cannot have Christ dwelling in him, but must

be alienated from the Life of God.

There is a necessity of frequently joining in the Eucharist,
in order to the preserving our Covenant and Communion with
God, if we consider the particulars, in which this covenant
and communion consist. And

1. On God's part, it consists in pardon of sin, grace to
amend our lives, and the assurances of a happy immortality.
These are mercies, of which we always more or less stand in
need, and which we have no stated method of obtaining but
in the Holy Eucharist.

(1.) In many things we offend all; and when a Christian AstheEu-

has sinned, he must not only confess it, but he must apply sea^of par
don.

192 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, to Ged through Jesus Christ for pardon ; and the most proper

IL method of applying ourselves to God through Jesus is, to do it

in and by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; and there alone we
can have our pardon sealed, as has been sufficiently proved.
And the best of men cannot but believe, that they are often
guilty of sins of ignorance and surprise ; that they commit
many faults through want of circumspection, which wholly
escape their notice ; and that, through the treachery of their
memories, they often forget those sins which they knowingly
commit ; and that, therefore, they have perpetual occasion to
apply themselves to God for pardon. Upon this consideration,
all who believe that the Eucharist was ordained for the re
mission of sins, must see themselves under a necessity of
using it very frequently for the cure of their guilt. I have
fully shewedf, that the Eucharist was always esteemed in the
primitive Church a perfect Absolution, and how the Church
of Rome has obscured and perverted this doctrine, by pre
tending that men must be entirely absolved from their sins
before they receive the Sacrament. And it is very evident,
that by this doctrine they have very much lessened the value
of the Eucharist, and rendered the receiving of it frequently
less needful than it was thought by the primitive Christians,
who used it as a certain cure for their daily sins and infir
mities. If, indeed, our sins be of the grosser sort, or if we
allow ourselves in any evil habit, then it is evident, as will
hereafter appear, that we ought to abstain until we have re
formed ourselves ; but if our offences are such only as pro
ceed from the infirmities of nature, then we are not to think
that they do so separate betwixt God and us as to render us
unfit for the Sacrament, but are a sufficient motive to make
us more quick and constant in this duty, that we may obtain
mercy for what is past, and strengthen ourselves for the time
to come.

A means of 2. Grace, or inward strength for the doing our duty, is an-
grace. other benefit of duly offering and receiving it : and as human
nature does perpetually want new supplies of spiritual vigour ;
so all that are sensible of this want will make use of those
means, which God has ordained for this end. We often meet
with violent temptations ; we find just occasion frequently to

1 See Chap. III. Sect. i.

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 193

complain of great hardships and difficulties, both in relation SECT.

to our spiritual and temporal condition. And whither should .

we go to recruit our strength and courage, to refresh our
languishing souls and to renew our joys, but to the Altar
of God, where the Holy Spirit is always ready to shed Its
comforts upon the hearts of all devout communicants ?

(3.) A happy resurrection to eternal life is a blessing, of And of a
which we can never make too sure. All wise and good men
make it their daily study and endeavour to do every thing
that may raise their hopes, and increase their modest assur
ances, of a blessed immortality. Too many honest well-
meaning Christians are full of grievous jealousies and
suspicions concerning their eternal state ; and, certainly, if
there be any cure on this side of heaven for these torment
ing fears, it is the constant attendance at God's Altar, with
the best preparation that they are able to make. Nothing
can ever clear their doubts and give them a full tide of humble
confidence, if the very frequent receiving of the Holy Sacra
ment do not. He that every week or every day has his
pardon sealed, his graces renewed, and the promises of eternal
happiness repeated to him and applied to his soul in the most
proper and solemn manner that God Himself can do it (with
out a miracle), he certainly takes the most proper course to
cheer and glad his soul, and to preserve himself from weari
ness and fainting in the pilgrimage and holy war, in which he
is engaged. If a Christian be never so steady arid forward
in all other parts of his duty, yet "except he feed on the
Flesh of Christ, and make Christ's Blood his drink, he has
no life in him :" and it is impossible, that any man can be
sure that he does " feed on the Flesh of Christ," if he does
not often receive the Holy Sacrament; for I think I have
effectually proved, that this text is meant of the Eucharist.
But now, he, who is not only industrious and circumspect in all
other duties but likewise very constant in his attendance at
the Lord's Table, may with the greatest degree of certainty ex
pect a happy immortality, and say, " Come, Lord Jesus, come
quickly ;" he may, with the most perfect degree of holy hope,
repose his confidence in Christ, Who hath promised, that " he
that feedeth on His Flesh hath eternal life."

2. On our part, covenanting and communicating with God

JOHNSON.

194 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, implies a sincere exercise of all Christian virtues and graces
As the*Eu- a^ Present> an(l a resolution of continuing in the practice of
charist is them for the future. No man is fit for the Eucharist but he,
tion to who has a sincere love and charity for all men, and such a
love to God as prevails over all other affections of his soul ;
none but he that is so humble, as not to assume any thing
to himself that is above him; so content, as to use no unjust
means in order to mend his condition ; so patient, as not to
murmur against God's Providence ; so chaste and temperate,
as not to have (of late at least) committed any wilful unclean-
ness or excess ; so devout, as to be fully convinced that he
owes all the spiritual and temporal blessings he enjoys to
God's goodness, and that from Him alone he must expect
whatever he wants, and therefore comes to the Holy Sacra
ment with a heart full of thanks for what he has already re
ceived, and of zeal and pious desires of those graces of which
he most of all stands in need ; and especially he must be so
penitent, as to be truly grieved for all his known sins, and
earnest in his petitions for pardon for all sins, whether known
or unknown. He, who wants any of these holy dispositions,
can by no means be fit for the Eucharist ; because there can
be no communion betwixt God and a vicious soul ; for " what
fellowship hath light with darkness ?" This is the fundamental
article of the Christian Covenant, that " Whoever names the
Name of Christ must depart from all iniquity ;" and " With
out peace and holiness no man can see the Lord :" therefore,
since in the Eucharist we do profess to covenant and have
communion with God, it does from thence plainly follow, that
no man is a proper guest for the Lord's Table but he, who
has a sincere aversion to and hatred of all sin, and a real dis
position to all the virtues and graces, which the Gospel re
quires of us. And it was evidently the design of Christ in
instituting the Eucharist, to bring all His disciples under the
strictest obligation to the duties of religion ; and all serious
Christians are so sensible of this, that they do never pre
sume to receive the Sacrament, until they have wrought
themselves for the present into a real sorrow for all their
past sins, and into a resolution of avoiding those sins, and
" walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the
Lord" for the time to come.

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 195

Now it needs no proof, that it is necessary we should often SECT.
and even constantly covenant and communicate with God in -
this manner, because they who do it seldom, once a year, or most pro-
once a quarter, are in great danger of losing all their labour. p^Ut J°-
For, during those long intervals of time in which they do not ^Pses into
receive at all, their good dispositions grow flat and cold, their
virtuous resolutions slacken, and by degrees wholly vanish
and are forgotten. It may perhaps prove otherwise with
some particular men of more than common firmness and
pious vigour ; but it is too evident that with many it is far
otherwise. They are very precise and devout for some days
before and after their receiving, but for the remainder of the
time they are loose and careless, and open to all temptations,
lukewarm and indifferent to all duty. This should convince
them of the necessity of being more frequent in this duty of
receiving the Eucharist; for it is evident, that if they did
daily or weekly revive their religious fervours, as they have
formerly done once a year or once a quarter, this would
make them such men through the whole course of their
lives, as they now are only a little before and after their
stated times of receiving ; and it was by daily, or, at furthest,
weekly Sacraments, that the primitive Christians kept their
covenant with God undefiled, arid their communion with
Him uninterrupted. We have all an unhappy natural bias
to vice ; and if, when we have taken some pains to kindle the
flame of Divine love and devotion in our breasts, we do not
take care to keep it alive, and cherish and improve it by the
same means which first raised it, it will soon go out and die.
Therefore the only way to prevent the loss of our labour in
religion is, to keep ourselves always up to our holy vows and
engagements, never to loosen the reins of our resolutions by
abstaining willingly for weeks or months together from the
Eucharist ; for, by being remiss for a few days, we shall find
we shall lose more ground than we can recover in a much
longer time.

There is a known vulgar objection against this ; I mean, The objec-
that familiarity breeds contempt ; and that when the Eucha-

rist is so often received as to become a thing of course, it breeds C(>n

tempt, con-

WOUld in a tew months or years make no impression upon sidered.
men's minds ; and therefore could not, in all probability, be

o 2

196 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY

CHAP, attended with such beneficial effects as I have hitherto sup-
- posed.

I shall answer this objection in the words of the most
pious and judicious Mr. Nelson s, of blessed memory,, viz.,
"Familiarity and intimate converse with men and things in
this world is apt to diminish our value and respect for them ;
it is quite the contrary in spiritual things, the frequent use
whereof is the likeliest means to increase our respect and
veneration towards them. An uninterrupted enjoyment of
the good things of this world may very well lessen our
esteem of them, because it convinces us they do not admi
nister that happiness which they promise ; but, the more we
employ ourselves in our spiritual exercises, we find they pro
duce a satisfaction that rises above what we expected or
worldly men can imagine. The better we know men, the
more we discover their frailties and imperfections ; and
therefore our familiarity with the best of men may be apt to
abate that respect we paid them at a distance, by reason of
that mixture of frailty which accompanies their greatest vir
tues. But, the oftener we converse with God in His holy
ordinances, the more we shall admire His Divine perfections ;
for an object of infinite perfection in itself, and of infinite
goodness to us, will always raise our admiration, and heighten
our respect and esteem, the more we contemplate it ; it being
the discovery of some imperfection, of some flaw, where we
thought there was none, that lessens our esteem and pror
vokes our contempt." He further observes, that " This objec
tion will hold with as much force against frequent prayer,
which the precepts of the Gospel make necessary. — If people
reap no benefit from their frequent Communion, the fault
must be laid upon the negligence of their lives, and upon the
slight care they take in the examination of their consciences :
and, if upon a strict inquiry they find any secret sin unre-
pented of, any habitual neglect of their duty, this great bar
to the influence of grace must be removed. — They that owe
their ardours at the Altar to their seldom approaching the
Holy Table, have too much reason to conclude they are more
affected from the rarity and unusualness of the action than
from the Divine virtue that flows from it; like those that

8 Of Frequent Communion, p. 46 — 51. Edit. 1st.

TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 197

converse seldom with men of great quality and title, the awe SECT.

they feel of their greatness proceeds more from their not —

being used to frequent their company than from the opinion
of their true worth and dignity : so that these people seem
rather to be under the power of nature than the influences
of grace. I am sure, experience will inform us, that the
devoutest ages of the Church were those wherein the prac
tice of frequent Communion most prevailed. And in the
accounts we have of the greatest Saints, never any one ex
celled in the virtues of a Christian life but what distin
guished himself by frequently nourishing his soul with this
Heavenly Bread. Nay, I dare appeal to those holy souls
who live under a strict sense of their duty in this particular,
whether their affections to the world do not lose ground, and
their desires toward Heaven do not grow more intense and
vigorous/' &c. In this and what follows, he did, no doubt,
speak his own sense, which he had gained by a long expe
rience of many years. Upon which account, I look upon
what he says on this occasion to be of more weight than if
it had come from the most learned men in the world ; and
therefore, as he humbly appeals to others, so all constant
retainers to the Altar will agree, that no person since the
Apostolical age was a more competent judge in this point,
because no man had a greater experimental knowledge of it
than himself.

I will only add, that there is just cause to apprehend, that Low no-
one great occasion of the unfruitfulness of many who live in Eucharist,6
the frequent use of the Sacrament, is to be imputed to the °£ unfmlt-
low and sorry notion which they have conceived of this most fulness in
heavenly Ordinance. It is looked upon by very many to be it.
a bare remembrance, a mere type, figure, and shadow, desti
tute of all inward spiritual power or efficacy; an outward
rite and ceremony, to be performed as often or seldom as
every man's own discretion shall direct him ; he, who consi
ders the Sacrament as nothing more than what has hitherto
been mentioned, can reap no great advantage by it, how
often soever he receive it; he may, indeed, by thus often
receiving, imprint the memory of his Saviour's Death upon
his own mind; and this is an effect of the Communion, how
ever or wheresoever administered, that is not to be despised.

198 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY TO RENEW OUR COVENANT.

CHAP. He, that further esteems the Sacrament as a Covenant be-

'- tween God and his own soul and the whole Church, may, by

frequently receiving it, be the better assured of God's mercy
toward him, and be the more sensible of his own obligations
to live in obedience to God and in brotherly love with his
fellow- Christians; yet still, if he believes that by any other
act of faith, devotion, or obedience, he does as truly feed
on the Flesh of Christ and drink His Blood as if he received
the Eucharist, he can have no just reason to be so frequent
in this duty of communicating in the Sacrament as he, who
is thoroughly persuaded, as all men ought to be, that Chris
tians can ordinarily covenant and have communion with God
in the Eucharist only. And I conceive it impossible in the
nature of things to prevail on the Christians of this age to
be as frequent and constant communicants, as they of the
Apostolic age were ; until they have the same notions of the
Eucharist, which they had. And when Christians are gene
rally convinced that this Holy Institution was designed by
Christ to be the constant, proper, and peculiar worship of
the Church; that in it alone we make our most effectual
addresses to God for pardon, grace, and salvation ; and that
there alone we receive from God the full assurances of these
mercies ; and that, therefore, by keeping at a distance from
the Eucharist we " deprive ourselves of the Bread of God,"
as Ignatius has it ; that we " are separated from the Body of
Christ, and remain far off from salvation," as St. Cyprian
expresses it : then, and not till then, we shall have reason
to hope that they " will continue stedfastly in breaking of
Bread," as well as in other duties of Religion.

CHAP. III.

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

IT is certain, the Eucharist was ever esteemed but One by
the primitive Christians and by all judicious Divines, though
never so often administered and received by Priests and
people, and in places vastly distant from each other ; and no
one will, I suppose, contradict me in this point, since St. Paul
assures us, that "we" (Christians) "are all One Bread" or
Loaf, " and One Body : for we are all partakers of that One
Loaf." Instead therefore of saying any more to prove that
the Eucharist is but One, I shall rather make it my business
to shew how or in what sense it is so. Now I conceive the
Eucharist is One,

1. Considered as the same Sacrifice of Christ's Sacramental
Body and Blood ;

2. As it is sanctified by One and the same Spirit ;

3. As the effects of It are the same in all worthy re
ceivers ;

4. As the rites and manner of performing It were intended
to be the same ;

5. As the offerers and communicants are One, that is,

1 . The Priests, who are One by their Commission ;

2. As both Priests and people were intended to be One
1. In faith, 2. In charity, 3. In government and dis
cipline ;

6. As to the place, that is, the Catholic Church, as opposed
to all heretical and schismatical assemblies.

The Eucharist is One, considered as One Sacrifice of Christ's Eucharist
Sacramental Body and Blood. The Bread and Wine, used
in the several congregations of Christians, can no more be
said to be One and the same in their own substance or Cimst.

200 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, nature, than the lambs offered by the several families of the
- Israelites were one and the same lamb ; and yet St. Paul
assures us that we are all partakers of " that One Loaf," and
that thereby we are made "One Body." It is therefore "One
Loaf," as It represents the One natural Body of Christ sacri
ficed for our sins ; as It represents the One mystical Body of
Christ, wheresoever dispersed throughout the world. There
fore, if you will suppose a million of loaves to be consecrated
by as many Priests, at one and the same time, in an equal
number of congregations, yet they are still, in the Mystery,
but One Loaf; because they all represent but One Body of
Christ, and are that One Body in power and efficacy. In
this sense it is that Chrysostom saysh, " We offer but One
Sacrifice;" and that Cyprian asserts1, "We ought to do or
offer nothing in the Eucharist, but what our Lord did and
offered :" and so say other of the ancients ; for they believed
that He did, in the Eucharist, make the One Oblation of Him
self. And, in this sense, Ignatius speaks to the Philadelphiansk
of having "but One"Eucharist; " because," says he, "the Flesh
of Jesus Christ is but One, the Cup but One in the Unity of
His Blood :" and he charges the Ephesians1 to "break but One
Bread" or Loaf. Whether there were more than one con
gregation of sound Christians in either of these cities, is not
certain : but if there were never so many, yet, by preserving
the Unity of the Church, they preserved the Unity of the Eu
charist; and all the masses of Bread used in the several
assemblies were but One Body of Christ. The words, going
immediately before those just now cited from the Epistle to
the Philadelphians, do well deserve our consideration. This
holy Martyr tells them, that "If any one follow him that
makes a schism, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God;
he that walks after any strange opinion, does not consent"
or accord "to the Passion"1;" that is, by departing from the
Church, he disavows the Eucharist. For I have elsewhere11
shewed, that the Sacrament is by the ancients called " the
Passion of Christ." Schismatics withdraw from the Eu
charist of the Church ; and what they offer, eat, and drink in

h P. p. 43. Ap. i b. p. 2. Ap.

1 m. 9, 10. p. 13, 14. Ap. m Ov ffvyKarariQ^Tai T$ irdQ

* g. p. 2. Ap. n See Part I. p. [143,] &c.

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 201

their separate assemblies, is not the Passion of Christ, or the CHAP.
True Sacrament of His Body and Blood. That this was the, — — —

meaning of this blessed Martyr appears from the next words,
"Study therefore to enjoy the One Eucharist ; for the Flesh of
Jesus Christ is but One."

2. The Eucharist is One, as sanctified by the same Holy And as con-
Spirit. I have formerly shewed at large0, that it was the OneSpiritf
settled judgment of the Primitive Church of the first ages,
that the Holy Spirit did by Its secret power overshadow the
elements of Bread and Wine, and by Its Divine influence
render them the Body and Blood of Christ in efficacy and
virtue, without changing their natural substance. And this
is the doctrine of St. Paul, when he speaks of Christians'
being "made to drink into the One Spirit •/' and our Saviour
Himself, after He had spoken of feeding His people with His
Flesh and Blood, further adds, that the words which He
spake were "Spirit and Lifep ;" that He did not promise them
mere bodily things, but His Sacramental Body and Blood,
replenished with the Holy Spirit, and receiving by this means
a Life-giving power. There can therefore no more be two
Eucharists, than two Bodies of Christ or two Holy Spirits ;
and Gaudentius<i has well expressed the primitive doctrine
in the following words ; " In the type of the Legal Passover,
not only one lamb was killed, but many. There was a lamb
killed for every family, for one was not sufficient for them
all; for that was a figure, not the verity of the Lord's
Passion. In the verity, under which we are, One died for all ;
and that same [One], being offered in every Church in the
Sacrament of Bread and Wine, enlivens, if believed on ; and
sanctifies the consecrators ;" that is, the Priests. And a little
afterr he tells us, that " As Bread is brought to perfection
by fire, so is the Sacramental Body of Christ perfectly con-
^Cictced by the Holy Ghost."

3. The effects of the Eucharist are the same in all worthy The effects
receivers. These are, the pardon of sin, the influence af
grace, the assurance of a happy resurrection, as I have over
and again shewed in the foregoing part of this work. Some
good communicants may receive these effects in greater

0 See Part I. p. [266—29(5.] 1 a. p. 30. Ap.

P See Part I. p. [287.] r d. p. 31. Ap.

202 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, degrees than others ; but all that come to the Lord's Table

- '• — : with a pious and well-prepared mind have these benefits

conferred on them in such measures, as they want, or are

qualified to accept and use them. There is no occasion to

enlarge in so plain a case; it is sufficient to say, that the

same cause must produce the same effects in all cases, where

the persons, upon whom the operation is to be made, are

equally capable of receiving benefit by it.

How the 4. The rites and manner of performing the Eucharist were

manner of..,,,,, Tn

the Eucha- intended to be the same, I do not mean as to every minute

circumstance or punctilio, but as to the main. The rites,
sa™ every- circumstances, or modes of administering and receiving the
Eucharist may be divided into three ranks : first, some are
perfectly indifferent, as the signing of the elements with the
cross, the placing the Bread and Wine on the side-altar
before they are brought to the proper Altar, the use of
leavened or unleavened Bread, the vestment or habit used
either by Priest or people, so it be decent and without any
air of levity or immoderate gaudiness, any affectation either
of splendour or sordidness, and agreeable to the custom or
laws of the Church : the posture of receiving I reckon too
among the indifferent rites ; . I mean, whether it be done
kneeling or standing ; for sitting I think not to be endured.
And it is a vulgar error to suppose that our Saviour and the
Apostles did not either kneel or stand, while they were per
forming this most sacred office. And among these are
especially to be understood all the foppish ceremonies intro
duced into the Latin and Greek Churches in the middle and
dark ages, which are too many and too frivolous to be par
ticularly named with any tolerable degree of patience ; in a
word, I reckon all rites indifferent, which cannot be reduced
to the two following heads.

Kiss of A second sort of rites or modes are those which are Apo-

SxedCup, stolical, and which greatly deserve to be restored, but which
meltsbefn6" ^° not seem necessarv to tne essence of the Eucharist ; such
offered by is the kiss of charity, mentioned both by St. Peter and St.
nicants, Paul, allowed, I think, by all learned men to have been used
in tne first aSes of tne Church8, just at the entrance on the

s See Const. Apost., lib. ii. cap. 57. lib. viii. c. 12.

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 203

holy action1. This custom began to be laid aside in the CHAP.
Western Churches in the ninth century. Whether it con- lp^ ^
tinued so long or ceased sooner in the Greek Church, I know 14.
not ; but in the twelfth century u there was no such ceremony le^icor
practised, except between Bishops only. This rite was in-

tended to express the mutual charity of the communicants; i2;iThess.
and since it is authorized by the Apostles themselves, I can
not but think that it ought to have been retained ; or, if the
kiss be not now thought consistent with that gravity of mind,
which best suits so solemn an institution, in an age so much
disposed to turn every thing into jest and raillery, shaking
of hands or embracing, (the men with the men, the women
with the women only,) might have been used instead of it. This
certainly had been much better than the kissing of a crucifix
or some such instrument of superstition, which is now prac
tised in the room of the holy kiss in the Latin Church. Such
is the rite of mingling of water with the Sacramental Wine ;
I have spoken very particularly of this before x, and now shall
only add, that it seems to me to have been an Apostolical
Use, and very probably practised by Christ Jesus Himself y;
therefore I cannot but wish that it might be restored. It is
certain, that Martin Luther2 retained the use of it for some
time, after he had renounced the Communion of the Church
of Rome; as also did our first Reformers in the reign of
Edward VI. A third rite of this sort is, the people's first
offering that Bread and Wine to the Priest, which is after
wards to be consecrated for the Holy Eucharist. That this

4 See Amalarius de Eccles. Officiis, TCOV, KOI StStWa avroTs rb iroT-f)pioi>,

lib. iii. c. xxxii. [apud Hittorpium, Ed. irep\ ov yeypairrat, oi»x' #Tt eKfpacrfV

Paris. 1624.] 6 'IrjcroDs yap ev<ppaiv<av TOVS fj.a6ri-

u See Zonaras in Can. Laodic. 19. ras a/cpary evtypaivei, Kal \eyci av-

and Balsamon in eundem. rols' AajSere, iriere, Kal r. A. 6pas

x See Chap. I. Sect. iv. T^JV eirayyeXiav rb TroT-rjpiov rrjs Kaivris

y Yet Mons. Pfaffy produces some dtadTjKTjs ofxrav 6pas rds Ko\d<rfis iro-

words from Origen's twelfth Homily rnpiov otvov attpdrov. I suppose my

on Jeremiah xiii. 12. [torn. iii. p. 194. judicious reader will easily discern that

Ed. Ben.] which expressly assert, that the place is corrupted ; for, as it stands,

Christ administered the Eucharist in it makes 'unmixed wine' to denote a

unmixed Wine. I will give the words 'punishment' in Jeremiah, a 'promise'

somewhat more at large than Mons. in the Eucharist. Origen probably

Pfaffy has done, that my reader may wrote evKpary evtypaivei, and ytypairrai

the better be enabled to make a judg- '6n txepaffev, "It was written" in some

ment of them. "iSe Se JJLOL rbv 2«Tf)pa memorials long since lost, that Christ

irpbs rb ndffxa ava&a'ivovTa fls a.v*>- used ' Wine well-mixed.'
yaiov fAeya ^<rrpct)/ji.fvbv Kal KCKOT/JLT)- x See Pfaffius, ubi supra, p. 176.

P.CVOV, Kal ioprdfoi/Ta juerct T<av

204 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, was the universal usage of the primitive Apostolical Church,
- is, I think, agreed by all men of learning ; and I have suffi
ciently proved upon another occasion a. It must be owned,
that this is not anywhere in the Western Church observed, as
it was in the purest ages. Among the Papists, the Priests d'o
generally provide the elements, at least so it was here in
England before the Reformation. By the First Liturgy of
Edward VI. every house in the parish was by turns to offer
the value of the Holy Loaf, but still the Priest was to furnish
it, though at the parishioners5 cost. Now it is purchased by
the Church-wardens out of the common stock, as the morning
and evening sacrifices of the Jews were out of the public
treasury levied on the people ; and this comes nearest to the
primitive practice. Yet it must be owned that this practice
is liable to objection, because it cannot in strictness be said
to be a free-will-offering, as I think the Eucharistical Bread
and Wine ought to be; and if it were free, yet since the
common stock of every parish is raised out of the estates of
vicious and profligate men, of heretics and schismatics, nay,
as it may happen, of Jews and Atheists, I cannot but wish
that, in this respect, there were some better provision. It is
certain, the primitive Church would never have accepted the
offerings of such men, if they had been never so free and
voluntary, especially as a fund for purchasing of the Bread
and Wine. The offerings of those laymen who lived in malice,
though they were in all other respects sound Christians, were
not accepted; none but they who led unblemished lives were
allowed to communicate, and none but communicants were
permitted to make an Oblation at the Altar. It is evident
that the primitive Christians "brought their gifts" of Bread
Matt. v. 23. and Wine " to the Altar," in compliance with our Saviour's
precept in His Sermon on the Mount ; and therefore thought
themselves obliged to do it with such a disposition of mind
as He there requires, that is, with such charity and integrity
that no " brother might have aught against them," any wrong
or injury to charge them withal ; much more was it thought
necessary, that the whole Church should have no reason to
resent the misbehaviour of those who came to make their
offerings. It ought in reason to be owned, that it is very

• See Part I. p. [434,] &c.

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 205

desirable, that these three Rites were now strictly observed in CHAP,
the Christian Church, and especially this last ; yet I dare not
assert, that any or all of them are necessary to such a degree,
as that the Eucharist being celebrated without them does
thereby become unacceptable to God or unprofitable to men.
The holy kiss could be intended for no other end, but to be
an open declaration of the mutual charity of the communi
cants ; and if we have this grace and exercise it upon all just
occasions, this is a better proof of our brotherly love than all
the outward professions of it, that men can make. The
mingling water with the Wine is no more than complying
with the primitive Church in an outward circumstance. It
is probable indeed, that the primitive Church copied this prac
tice from the Apostles, and even from Christ Jesus Himself,
and it would therefore be a most unjustifiable practice to
depart from any Church on account of using water with the
Wine ; but since no Christians of tolerable judgment do think
it blameable to administer or receive the Sacrament at an
other time, in another posture, in a different place, in other
sort of bread, than what were used by Christ and His
Apostles at the first Institution ; therefore no man, I think,
ought to esteem it sinful to use unmixed Wine, though there
is good reason to believe that our Saviour and His Apostles
tempered their Wine with water. It is true, the water was
thought by the ancients to signify the people, as the Wine
did the Blood of Christ ; but then the many grains of wheat
ground and kneaded into one loaf, and the several grapes
whose juice was pressed into one vessel, were likewise thought
to denote the same thing ; and there can be no necessity for
having the Church doubly represented in the Sacrament.
And as to the people's offering the Bread and Wine, which
were to be consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ,
this was indeed absolutely necessary, while there was no
other provision made for furnishing God's Altar ; but it can
not be deemed so necessary now, when all Churches have,
by one means or other, a stated supply of Bread and Wine
for this purpose; though it must be confessed, that the
ancient method is most proper and agreeable to the nature
of the Ordinance. But our Saviour does not absolutely re
quire men to bring their gifts to the Altar, but only gra-

206 OP THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, ciously presumes, they will do it, whenever they see occa-
— — sion for it. " If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar," are His
words ; this implies, that whatever is done of this sort must
proceed from the free-will of the people.

Necessary But then there are a third sort of rites and modes so neces
sary, that, when they are omitted, the Eucharist must in
justice be deemed defective and imperfect, and we can have no
just foundation to believe that it is done according to the
will and intention of Christ Jesus. These rites or modes
are as follow,

Placing (1.) The first necessary Rite of the Eucharist is, that the

Priest PlaCe Bread and Wine On the Lord'S Table- The

Altar, Sur- Eucharist cannot be without Bread and Wine : and I con-

sum corner,

Trisagiwn, ceive it to be necessary, that It be presented to God by the
Priest, not only from the general consent of the Church in
all ages, which has ever directed the Priest to perform this
office, as our Church does at this day ; but from the general
laws of Sacrifice, one of which always was, that the priest
should lay on the altar all that was offered on it. All the
old Liturgies do likewise agree in this, that as soon as the
Bread and Wine have been reverently placed on the Altar,
the Priest calls on the people to " lift up their hearts to God
and to give thanks •" and, the people having declared their
compliance with the Priest in these particulars, there imme
diately followed a large recital and acknowledgment of God's
dominion, providence, goodness, and special mercies to His
Church, especially in redeeming mankind by Christ Jesus;
in token of our homage and gratitude for which mercies, the
Bread and Wine were presented at the Altar. This acknow
ledgment always began with those words which are still in
our Liturgy, viz., " It is very meet, right, and our bounden
duty, that we should at all times and in all places give
thanks unto Thee, O Lord, Holy Father," &c. It were to be
wished, that there had been a particular rehearsal of God's
most signal favours and providences to His Church here in
serted in our Liturgy, as in those of old; instead whereof
only Christ's Birth, Resurrection, &c., are expressly mentioned
at their proper Festivals; however, this is closed by our Church,
as it was in the most primitive times, with that Angelical
hymn, " Holy, Holy, Holy," &c. There is greater reason than

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 207

that of universal practice, to prove this recital and acknow- CHAP.
ledgment of God's dominion, power, and goodness to be —
necessary; I mean, that Christ, having just before eaten the
Passover, did, in performing that ordinance, bless God for
having created Bread and the fruit of the vine ; for all Jewish
Rabbies and Christian Divines agree in this, that the master
of the feast always did this. And there is the same reason
for doing this in the Eucharist ; and the Christian Church
has therefore always followed this pattern, and done it in a
more solemn ample manner than was used by the Jews of
old. There was no occasion for our Saviour to do this over
again, when He took some of the Bread and Wine that re
mained after the Passover-feast was concluded, to represent
His own Body and Blood, because He had done it but just
before ; there was no occasion for Christ to place Bread and
Wine on the Table, because there was Bread and Wine suffi
cient still remaining over and above, after the Passover was
ended. In all the later Liturgies there is some form of
words used by the Priest at his presenting the Bread and
Wine on the Altar, as there is now in ours, begging of God
to " accept the Oblation ;" but there is no such form in the
most ancient of all.

I shall only further observe, that though it be not now ex
pected, that communicants should offer Bread and Wine ; yet
it now is and ever was the duty of all that come to the Altar,
not to appear empty before God. Christ has declared, that
when any one approaches the Altar, he should "bring his
gift with him." He has not indeed so absolutely enjoined it,
as that he who brings nothing is therefore to be driven from
the Lord's Table ; for all offerings under the Gospel are to be
free : but men must take heed, that they do not use this free
dom as a cloak for covetousness or uiicharitableness. If the
Priest be otherwise provided of a proper maintenance, yet
the poor are not to be neglected.

(2.) Rehearsing the Words of Institution is the second Rehearsing
necessary Rite. This is so ancient, as that no man knows o
the beginning of it ; so universal, that I suppose there is no tioa-
Church or pretended Church in the world, but what ever did
and still does use it : there is no reason to doubt but that it
ever was used and everywhere. I know Mr. Hales and others

208

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP.
III.

Breaking
Bread, and
pouring out
Wine.
Acts ii. 42 ;
xx. 7.
1 Cor. x.
16.

The offer
ing of the
symbols in
commemo
ration of
Christ's
Death.

Luke xxii.
20; ICor.
xi. 25.

have argued against the necessity of using these words ; but,
certainly, no modest Christian will argue against a practice
so venerable as to its antiquity, established by so great an
authority as that of all Churches of the past and present age.
These Words are indeed the commission, by which the Priest
acts, and by virtue whereof the Bread and Cup are consigned
to be representatives of the Body and Blood of Christ.

(3.) The breaking of the Bread and pouring out of the
Wine are necessary rites ; for the whole solemnity is some
times distinguished by the title of "breaking Bread ;" and
"the Bread which we break" is the distinguishing character
of the Sacramental Body of Christ in the Eucharist. And it
is certain, that our Saviour brake the Bread with His own
hands, and then distributed it to the disciples ; and no man
that is not in love with contention will dispute, whether it be
not necessary for every Minister, in celebrating this Sacra
ment, to do what our Saviour did in performing this solemnity;
and I suppose the pouring out of the Wine is necessary in
the same degree that the breaking of the Bread is so.

(4.) The Priest's offering of the Bread and Cup, after the
Words of Institution, in commemoration of Christ's Death,
Resurrection, and Ascension, is what seems to be a necessary
rite. I cannot but express my wonder, that some men of
considerable reputation in the learned world should imagine,
that Christ, when He instituted the Eucharist, did only use
some Jewish forms of benediction, such as every master of a
family pronounced at a common entertainment. It is cer
tain, that our Saviour, in causing His disciples to eat and
drink after the Passover as He did, acted directly contrary
to the practice of the Jews, who thought it unlawful to taste
either meat or drink, after they had once concluded their
solemn supper on the lamb; and the Jews at this day ob
serve the same rule of abstinence, after they have eaten their
unleavened bread, as the learned Pfaffiusb, after Buxtorf, has
shewed from the writings of the Rabbies. Now it is certain,
our Saviour took the Cup "after supper;" and, as many
learned men have observed, the words of St. Matthew and
St. Mark, when they begin to relate the Institution, ought to

See Pfaff. De Oblatione, p. 166, &c.

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 209

be rendered0, " when they had eaten," that is, after they had CHAP.
ended the Paschal supper. Our Saviour had already per- -
formed the office of a master at the Paschal feast, in blessing
both the Bread and Cup after the manner of the Jews, and
now He blesses the Bread and Cup, as the pledges of the
New Covenant ; and to imagine, that He did and said nothing
upon this occasion, but what a grave Jew would have said or
done at a common meal or banquet, or what He had done
just before at the Passover-feast, is to sink the Eucharist into
as low a degree of contempt as the very enemies of Chris
tianity can desire. He does Himself assure us, that " the
Bread was His Body given," or offered to God, "that the
Cup was His Blood shed for the remission of sins." We are
not therefore to doubt but that He did then under the sym
bol of Bread offer His Body, under the symbol of Wine pour
out His Blood. Whether He did this in words audibly pro
nounced, I do not undertake to determine ; it is sufficient, if
He did it by the words of His mind only, and by the Eternal
Spirit; and I have abundantly shewed, that the primitive
Church was taught by the Apostles to do the same that
Christ had done, that is, to give or offer the Bread and Wine
to God, in memory of what He now did ; and whether Christ
did openly speak the words of Oblation or not, it is certain
that the Bishops and Priests of the primitive Church were
always required to perform this solemn part of their office in
such a manner, that they might be heard by the people ; and
if the Eucharist be a Sacrifice, then it seems to me, that the
offering it to God must be one part of the blessing to be
passed upon it.

(5.) The Invocation of the Holy Ghost on the symbols was Theinyoca-
certainly thought necessary by the primitive Church ; and
this were necessary in the primitive ages, it cannot be unne
cessary now. I have fully provedd, that this was the universal
sentiment of all for some hundred years after Christ, and
have shewed what foundation this doctrine has in Scripture6;
and I have already in this chapter observed, that the Eucha
rist was designed to be One, as sanctified by the One Spirit.

c Matt. xxvi. 26 ; Mark xiv. 22. <» See Part I. p. [273.

4aQi6vT<av here is the second indefinite. e See Part I. p. [286.
See the Critics In loc.

210 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP. I think the generality of Protestants are agreed, that the
— Consecration is performed chiefly by prayer. In this the
Lutherans and Calvinists seem united ; and they do like
wise generally esteem the rehearsal of the Words of Institu
tion to be necessary to this purpose. The Lutherans do also
speak very favourably of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit f,
though it does not appear that they use it. The Church of
Romeg first laid aside this Invocation at the latter end of the
sixth century, but it was still retained in the Gallican Liturgy,
which was also used in the English Church till toward the
middle of the eighth century; and from that time forward
the Roman Liturgy prevailed in the whole Western Church,
and the Holy Ghost was no longer invoked at the consecra
tion of the Eucharist. The Greek and Eastern Churches do
constantly and universally practise it to this day. Our first
Reformers here in England restored this most pious and
Apostolical Prayer (though they placed it before the Words
of Institution, contrary to the ancient method) ; but in the
review of our Liturgy, two or three years after, it was
wholly omitted. It is clear, that the Church of Rome was
the mother of this corruption ; and I wish I could say that
the Reformation had reduced our Liturgy to the primitive
state in this particular. St. Ignatius11 wishes to the Churches
of the Magnesians, "an union of the Flesh and Spirit of Christ
Jesus in the Eucharist ;" and to this end charges them, "when
they meet together, to have the One Prayer !." This the holy
Martyr thought a most important blessing ; and certainly it
becomes and highly concerns all the Bishops and Pastors in
Christendom not only to express the same wish, but most
earnestly to labour for the accomplishing of it.

Interces- (6-) The intercessions for the Church and for all orders
Christians'. an^ degrees of men in it, is another necessary part of the
Eucharistic Office ; for this is but an express declaration of
that charity, which is absolutely necessary for all that desire
to receive the Sacrament to the benefit of their own souls.
To pray for all Christians in and by the Eucharist, is only to

f See Pfaff. De consecratione, p. 485, was omitted in the Sacramentary of

&c. Gregory the First, who flourished A.D.

s It seems evident, that the Holy 590.

Ghost was invocated in the Gelasian h See Part I. p. [281.]

Liturgy, see Part I. p. [276;] but it ' Ad M agues,, c. 7.

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 211

speak our intention in offering the Sacrifice ; and this is what CHAP.
has always been done, not only by Christians, but by Jews - —
and heathen in all the oblations which they made. And by
all Churches' and every private Christian's praying for all
other Churches and for every member of them, the Unity of
the whole Church and of the Eucharist was of old preserved
entire : not only a universal charity was thereby exercised,
but the Sacrifice was declared to be offered in behalf of the
same persons, in every single congregation of Christians
throughout the world. I believe it to be very evident in
itself, that we have the example of Christ for doing this :
for I have shewedk, that the long prayer contained in the
seventeenth chapter of St. John was put up to God by our
Saviour, upon His instituting the Eucharist ; and there He
intercedes with His Father in the first six verses for His own
glorification, that is, His Resurrection, Ascension, sending the
Holy Ghost, and the success of His Gospel; in the fourteen
next verses, He most earnestly addresses Himself to God in
behalf of the Apostles ; and, in the following words, for " all
that should believe in His Name/' that is, for all Christians
of all ages to the world's end. There is little doubt but the
Apostles followed the example of their Master in this as well
as other respects; and the primitive Church learned this
practice from them. It must be owned, that we cannot
certainly say at what precise point of time our Saviour used
this prayer; but the best or rather the only guide in this
particular is the Use of the primitive Church ; and it is evi
dent, that the most ancient Liturgies now in being direct
these intercessions to be made after the Consecration is
ended, and before the distribution begins, though the latter
Liturgies have these intercessions dispersed in the several
parts of them. And therefore no more need be said to shew,
how we may render our Eucharist one and the same with
that of the Christian Church in the purest ages, and, by con
sequence, with that of Christ Himself.

It is impossible, at this great distance of time, to determine,
whether the Apostles did in all Churches use exactly the same
form of words, or whether every one of them used his own
discretion in drawing a Liturgy for the use of himself and

k Introduction.

212 OP THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, the Churches settled by him. I find the most learned and
- judicious writers on this subject are rather inclined to think,
that their harmony in this particular did not consist in using
the same words and phrases, but that every Apostle chose
his own way of expression ; but I see no shadow of reason to
believe, that any of them or of the primitive Bishops did not
always keep strictly close to their own forms, aud always use
the same words. I look on extempore Prayer to be a mere
modern invention, unheard-of in the Church until now of
very late. And though I presume not to assert, that every
Bishop thought himself obliged precisely to confine himself
to follow his predecessor in every single expression ; yet I am
persuaded, that the variations they used consisted rather in
words than sense; and that they all tied themselves to the
same method in performing this most solemn Ordinance ; and
this was that which they called the e Order }) or ' Method' of
their Liturgy.

Lord's Some might have expected, that I should speak of the

necessary Lord's Prayer as necessary to the Consecration of the Eucha-

> Because several of the Fathers about four hundred years
after Christ do mention it as constantly used in the Conse
cration-Service ; and I cannot but readily confess, that it
may very properly be used on that or any other weighty
occasion; nay, I dare not say that the ancients were mis
taken, when by the ' super-substantial Bread' they under
stood the Eucharist. Yet I can by no means believe that
the use of it is necessary to Consecration ; not only because
it is not inserted into the Consecration-Service of the most
ancient Liturgy now in the world, nor mentioned by the
Fathers of the three first centuries, as a part of the Commu
nion Office ; but because it is very evident that our Saviour
did first and chiefly design it for a private prayer to be used
Matt. vi. 6. in the closet. And it is one thing for a private Christian
or for a congregation of Christians to beg of God, that they
may never want the Eucharist, or food necessary both for
their bodies and souls ; and it is another thing to invoke the
Divine Spirit, in order to render the present Bread and Wine
the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. Gregory01
Bishop of Rome, in the sixth or seventh century, did imagine

1 Gr. 'A«oAou0ia. Lat. Consequentia. m See Part I. p. [331, J

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 213

that the Apostles consecrated the elements with this prayer, CHAP.
and so have several others since him ; but this seems to have _
been a very late and ill-grounded tradition.

I have taken no notice of the Creed, as it is a part of the Nor the
Communion- Service. I deny not but the use of it in the fessfon,Cand
Eucharist is very seasonable and edifying ; but there is no Absolution-
reason to believe, that the primitive Church had the Creed
in their Communion-Service. The first authority for it is, I
think, in the third Council of Toledo, above five hundred
years after Christ. It was not received into the Roman
Church till above five hundred years after this, in the
eleventh century. Our very joining in the administration
or participation of the Eucharist does imply our profession
of the Christian Faith ; and though it is proper to explain
ourselves in this particular, yet the primitive Church did not
think it necessary. The Confession of sins and Absolution is
very far from being improper ; but yet, if I mistake not, they
are new, and peculiar to our Communion- Service. If the
Absolution were in the downright positive way, " I absolve
you," it would be more new still. The ancient Church,
I conceive, gave no direct absolution in words ; admission to
the Eucharist was believed to imply a full and perfect re
mission to all sincere communicants.

I do not mention the portions of Scripture, the Psalms, Nor the
Hymns, and other such like devotions before the Consecra- Hymns*11
tion, or after it, or during the time of administration, as
necessary to this ordinance, though very proper and com
mendable. The Lutherans" seem to attribute a sanctifying
power to these Hymns or Lauds ; but I am not sensible that
they have any evidence either in Scripture or antiquity for
this opinion. St. Matthew, according to our English Trans
lation, says of our Saviour and His Apostles, that " they sung
an hymn." Our Divines commonly suppose that they sung
six of the Psalms, beginning at the 1 13th, ending with the
118th; the only foundation for this is, that the Jews used
to do this at the Passover : if, therefore, the Hymn consisted

" Pfaff. De consecr., p. 486. In quens Psalmo cxi. consecraretur. He

Ecclesia Roterodamensi Augustanae cites Chrysostom to the same purpose,

Confession! addicta ante aliquot annos p. 409, but I do not see that Chry-

receptum fuit, ut, primo quidem Vino sostom's words carry any proof with

Verhis Institutionis consecrato, inse- them.

214 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP. of those Psalms, it is certain that they sang it rather in
- regard to the Passover than the Eucharist. The Greek
word, used here by St. Matthew0, is of a very wide and
uncertain signification, and does not necessarily imply sing
ing. Grotius believes that the Evangelist's meaning was,
that the Apostles joined with our Saviour in that most
solemn and devout address, which He made to God the
Father, contained in the seventeenth chapter of St. John's
Gospel: and this I think as probable as any other of the
conjectures, which men of learning have made on this obscure
passage ; but nothing can with any certainty be concluded
from it.

Distribu- Another necessary Rite of the Eucharist is that of distri-
ce°ssa?yrite. buting the symbols or the Sacramental Body and Blood of
Christ. Nobody will expect that I should spend many
words to prove, that the Eucharist was intended by Christ to
be eaten and drunk ; it is what I have in the foregoing Part
of this work frequently insisted on ; it is what is necessarily
imported in the very notion of the Eucharist ; for it is not
only a Sacrifice, but a feast. The Church of Rome, in per
mitting the Oblation without the Communion, has notoriously
violated the Institution of Christ and the Unity of the Eu
charist. The private Masses; used in that Church, are with
out any example of the best and most primitive times. This
is an Eucharist peculiar to the Papists ; not the ' One Eu
charist' which Christ Jesus founded.

(8.) The last necessary Rite is the Priest's benediction :
for I have elsewhere fully shewed that all sacrifices of God's
people ought to be concluded in this manner, for that all
Divine blessings are procured chiefly by means of Sacrifice.
Accordingly, in the most ancient Liturgy now in beingp, there
is a very large and solemn form of blessing to be pronounced
by the Bishop or Priest : and this blessing, given at the close
of the Communion- Service, I suppose to be that " greater
benediction," mentioned once and again in the Constitutions ;
the "lesser" being that which was given in private, or on lesser
occasions. Tertullian^ expresses the horror of excommunica-

0 Vid. Stephani Thesaurura Gr. earn sequebatur, quas diabolo projicie-

Ling. [stib voce 'Tfywew.] batur, ut sacramento bcnedictionis ex-

p Ap. Const., lib. viii. c. 15. auctoraretur.
*» De Pudicitia, c. 1 4. Maledici enim

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 215

tion by the phrase of " being cashiered from the Sacrament of CHAP.
Blessing/' the consequence whereof he therefore thought a —
curse ; (for he speaks of a final, irrevocable excommunication.)
In truth, the distributing of the Eucharist implies a bless
ing to all worthy communicants, whether it be expressed in
words at length, or not; but since it appears, that it has
always been the practice of the Church to conclude the Eu
charist by pronouncing a solemn form of benediction, I con
ceive it would be very unwarrantable in any Church to omit
it. Eusebiusr tells us that " Melchisedec blessed Abraham in
bread and wine /' yet we are at the same time assured, that
he did also in words explain the meaning of this implicit
benediction ; for he said, " Blessed be Abraham of the Most
High God/' &c. I proceed,

5thly, to consider the Unity of the Eucharist in relation
to them who are the communicants. These are, first and
principally, the Priests ; and then, in the second place, the
people.

(1.) The Eucharist is One, as offered by Priests, who are How the
One by their Commission. It is very evident, that it was not Or ought to
only our Saviour's intention but His most passionate desire, be' One*
that, as all His Apostles received their Commission from. Him,
so they might execute it with such a harmony and consent
of mind, that there might not be the least jarring between
them: for thus He prays in their behalf, "Keep through John xvii.
Thine own Name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they
may be One, as We are." And the foundation of our Saviour's
wishes and expectations for so perfect an union between His
Apostles was this, as is expressed by Himself, " I have given John xvii.
them the words which Thou gavest Me," that is, He had
committed to them the same treasure of Divine Truth, which
the Father had before committed to Him ; and therefore He
had reason to hope and pray, that as He was perfectly One
with the Father, so they would endeavour by all possible
means to be One with Him and with each other, by teaching
and practising those holy truths and ordinances in the same
manner that they had seen and heard Him do. After His
Resurrection, He does with great solemnity tell them, " As John xx.
My Father sent Me, even so send I you." From which 21*

' h. p. Iti. Ap.

216 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, words it is evident, that the Commission of all the Apostles
: — was one and the same ; that it was such a commission as

Christ Himself in His Human Nature had received from His
Father. And even they, who were not of the same order with
the Apostles but only inferior Presbyters under them, yet, by
deriving their authority from the same fountain-head, and
exercising it in conformity to the instructions which they
received from them, they still kept the unity of the Spirit in

1 Cor. Hi. 8. the bond of peace; therefore " He that planted the Gospel"

among the Corinthians, that is, St. Paul, and Apollos " that
watered it," are both said to be " One •" and the same Apostle

2 Cor. xii. says of himself and Titus, at another place, "Walked we

not in the same Spirit, walked we not in the same steps?"
Apollos was but a Priest, Titus was scarce yet ordained
Bishop, when St. Paul thus speaks of their Union with him.
It was upon this account, that Ignatius8, Cyprian*, and others,
represent the whole College of Bishops throughout the whole
world as one person, sitting in one Chair, attending one
Altar : and that, therefore, is the " One Eucharist," which
is celebrated by this One Priesthood; and St. Clement of
Komeu allows nothing to be offered without the inspection
of the High-Priest : and therefore, when a new Altar is
erected, a new Bishop ordained in opposition to the former,
then there is just occasion to ask that question, as St. .Paul
did, " Is Christ divided ?" When two several Pastors assume
to themselves the privilege of offering and consecrating the
Sacrament, not only in two distinct places, but in contradic
tion to each other, and by two several inconsistent claims,
then it is evident, that one of them acts by no Commission ;
for if the true Eucharist can be had in two opposite assem
blies, then Christ's Flesh ceases to be One. It is altogether
as absurd to suppose that two separate and contrary autho
rities can give or consecrate the Eucharist, as it is to affirm
that the same Prince can have two Chancellors and Broad-
Seals in the same principality, two subordinate magistrates
in the same city or district, acting against each other. And

8 Ad Philad. [c. iv.] ti> Ovcriaa-T-fipioy, fieri praeter unum Altare et unum Sa
ws els 'EiriffKoiros. cerdotium non potest. — Cypr. Ep. 40.

* Deus unusest, et Christus unus, et [p. 53. Ed. Bened.]
una Ecclesia, et Cathedra una — aliud " b. p. i. Ap. 1. 19.
altare constitui aut sacerdotium novum

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 217

if Christ designed His Church to be but One, and yet has CHAP.
commissioned two several sets of officers to act in His Name,
He has evidently defeated His own design. Certainly, Christ's
Church was by Him intended to be more perfectly One than
any temporal kingdom ever was ; and especially, that His
officers should be One, even as He and His Father are One.
But now if two distinct and directly opposite bodies of men
assume to themselves His authority, and under this pretence
divide His flock ; in this case, he who shall affirm that both
of these bodies of men are commissioned by our Saviour, and
that it is safe and lawful to communicate with both, must
suppose that Christ's Church was no more intended to be
One, than two several neighbouring nations that are in per
petual war with each other. But if never so great a number
of men claim this privilege of celebrating and consecrating
the Eucharist withiu the same city or country, and all of
them act in concurrence with each other and in subordina
tion to One Bishop, and use the same necessary rites or modes,
then the Eucharist is still One. If Cornelius's forty-six Priests,
in the third century, did administer and consecrate the Sa
crament every Lord's-day in as many several congregations
within the city of Rome or in the neighbouring country;
yet still it was but the same Eucharist that Bishop Cornelius
himself celebrated in his own Church ; for they all acted by
the same Commission and walked by the same Spirit, as St.
Paul, Apollos, and Titus, are said to have done. But Novatian,
setting himself up in opposition to Cornelius, and acting by
a contrary spirit, was universally condemned as an intruder,
usurper, invader; his altar and sacrifice were deemed mere
profanations, his bread and wine to be no true Eucharist but
a mere counterfeit and a scandalous forgery ; as any man may
see by what Cyprian says on this occasion x.

A world of time and pains have been misspent, not only by Presbytc-
our Dissenters but by some that go to Church, to prove that schismatics,
Presbyters have power to ordain ; it is certain, that no one has p1,.™^1]^
yet been able to give one single instance of the Presbyters' power to
being allowed to exercise this power in the primitive Church.
Even the ' Impartial Handy' has upon this head nothing

* c, d. p. 1 1. Ap. n, o. p. 15. Ap. into the Constitution, &c., of the Primi-

y See a book entitled, " An Enquiry tive Church that flourished within the

218 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, but fallacy to put upon the reader. But let it be granted,
— that Presbyters have a secret power of ordination reserved to
be used upon very extraordinary occasions ; yet even this will
not justify our Dissenters in their schism, except they could
prove too, that Bishops have no power to ordain; for it is
certain, that the Bishops with their Clergy had long been in
possession of all the Churches in England before any of their
adversaries made any pretence of claim against them, and
were therefore the true and sole Pastors of the Church.
When, therefore, the Puritans or Presbyterians set them
selves up for guides and ' Ruling Elders ' in direct opposition
to these Bishops and their Clergy, and endeavoured to gather
Churches out of their Churches, then was the Unity of the
Spirit broken, many members were torn off from the Body :
a new claim of administering the One Eucharist was made in
opposition to the Bishops and their Clergy, who had ever
before been in quiet possession of this privilege. Some of
both sides believed, that the Sacraments of Christ were truly
administered by both parties, though acting by a contrary
spirit ; and they, who did this last, were the greatest schis-

first 300 Years after Christ, &c. By though in truth it is most probable,

an Impartial Hand." The book was that by " Seniores" is meant the ' Pri-

effectually answered, before it was writ- mates,' by " Praepositi" the other ' Bi-

ten, by Dr. Maurice's Treatises of shops.' This writer proves, that Ter-

Diocesan Episcopacy against Clark- tullian by " Seniores" must mean ' Pres-

son. This writer would prove the Pres- byters,' because he speaks here of the

byterians' power of Ordination from discipline exercised in one particular

the known words of Firmilian, who says, Church, where there was but one Bi-

" Majores natu ordinandi possident shop. Now, on the other side, it is cer-

potestatem ;" and proves that ' Majores tain to a demonstration, that Tertullian

natu' signifies ' Presbyters,' because speaks of the discipline of the whole

' Seniores' has this sense in Tertullian's Christian Church, though he had the

Apology. (See p. 61. Part i. of the Churches of Africa more particularly

book before mentioned.) Now it is in his eye. The writer had even as

certain that ' Senes' and ' Seniores' was well have said, that Tertullian drew

the most honourable title given by the his Apology for one particular Church

Africans to their Bishops ; seeCan.100 only; but then the fallacy would have

[or 104,] and 127 [or 128] of the Afri- been more apparent. He pretends to

can Code, and the Acts of the African produce no example but that of Timo-

Synods : and this ' Impartial Hand,' thy's being ordained " by the hands of

when it had no turn to serve, translates the Presbytery," as we translate 1 Tim.

' Seniores' ' Bishops,' and understands iv. 14, and yet he himself argues upon

by it the chief Pastors of the Church, this supposition, that Bishops were

as distinguished from the Presbyters ; often called ' Presbyters' by the Holy

and this too in a passage from the same Writers, and therefore could not be in-

Firmilian. The Latin words are, " Ut sensible that ' Presbytery' may signify

per singulos annos Seniores et Prae- a 'synod of Bishops;' and he cannot

positi in unum conveniamus." From but very well know how Calvin under-

these words he infers, that "Bishops stood**this text, and how many other

and Presbyters met together every answers have been made to this cavil,
year (in Councils)," ttbi supra, p 148,

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 219

matics of all, because they not only favoured the schism, but CHAP.
did, in effect, declare that they thought schism to be no sin : '• —

and, certainly, they are to the greatest degree guilty of break
ing a Divine commandment, who not only transgress it, but
deny it to be a commandment, and so make the laws of God
of none effect. When Novatian assumed to himself the title
of Bishop of Rome, and pretended to act as such, in opposi
tion to Cornelius who had been regularly advanced to that
see, he and all who adhered to him were justly branded as
schismatics, though he was really ordained by three Bishops
of the Catholic Church ; much more were they guilty of the
same crime here in England, who not only usurped the
authority of their lawful Pastors, but did it without any pre
tence of being ordained Bishops, as Novatian was.

Both Priests and people must be One, in order to render The ortho-
the Eucharist truly One. For I have elsewhere shewed2, that areXOnepl
the people are to join with the Priest in the offering of JjJ^f
the Eucharist and in all devotions at the Altar. And so
long as the whole body of the people do conform themselves
and perform their parts in the public Liturgy of the Church,
so long Christ's Body is One and the Eucharist One. But
there are several cases that too frequently happen, by which
this Union is broken ; as,

§ 1 . When the people permit themselves to be seduced by But not
false teachers into heretical opinions, contrary to that Faith
which was once delivered to the Saints, and therefore can
no longer join in the public profession of the belief of the
Catholic doctrine of the Church, and upon that account
separate themselves from her assemblies, or are cut off from
the Body by just censures. Now, if such men as these are
so numerous, and full of zeal in their errors, as to form
themselves into distinct congregations under their new
guides, and to maintain a separate worship, and to dis
tinguish themselves by new creeds; then it is evident the
Communion of the Church is broken, the Faith is no longer
One in that sense which Christ intended, their Eucharist is
not the One Eucharist of the Christian Church.

§ 2. And even they, whose faith is pure, may yet violate STor schis-
the Unity of the Church and Eucharist by associating them- m

* Part I. p. [438,] &c.

220 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, selves to schismatical pastors or pretended pastors, or by
- making head against their own Bishops and Priests, and
heaping up to themselves new teachers without a competent
authority : for the Commission of Pastors is but One, and
when any man or body of men pretend to a new commission,
not derived to them in the ordinary way of succession, then
it is certain, the very bond of peace is broken, and the Eu
charist of two opposite bodies cannot be One. The Holy
Spirit cannot so far countenance division, as by Its gracious
Presence to give life and power to the Bread and Wine of
schismatical assemblies.

The Eucha- There are other crimes beside heresy and schism, wrhich do
is null. make men unfit for the Eucharist, while they remain under
them ; so that, though they do receive the true Christian
Eucharist, yet they do it to their own damnation : but so
long as both the Priest and people keep the Unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace, so long the Eucharist is One and
True, though they render it unprofitable to themselves by
their wilful sins and impenitence, and have a sad account to
give of themselves for this presumption. But when the very
assemblies, in which the Bread is broken, are only a combina
tion in schism and heresy, when their very devotions proceed
from strife and debate and a spirit of contradiction, and are
performed in defiance to peace and order and the Unity of
Christ's Body, then it is no longer a Christian assembly or a
Church, but a riot and conspiracy. They may have a re
semblance or imitation of the Eucharist, as rebels may
counterfeit the Broad Seal ; but they cannot have the thing
itself. Many well-meaning people may not discover the
imposture, and God is a most gracious Prince, and our
High-Priest is merciful, and can have compassion on the
ignorant and on them that are out of the way ; yet woe be to
them by whom the offence cometh ; I mean, to them that
are leaders and contrivers of such divisions. Such men are
never wanting to set a fair gloss on their proceedings, and do
commonly by some artful frauds persuade their followers,
that their administrations are with greater power and purity
than those of the Church. So Marcus, an ancient heretic
mentioned by Irenseusa, had a secret art, by which he made

a a. p. 3. Ap.

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 221

the Wine in his mock-Eucharist appear to be of a purple or CHAP.
red colour, which his deluded followers believed to proceed _
from a Divine power. Satan, in all ages, takes care that his
agents may be thought angels of light ; but all, that will
carefully use their own judgments, may without any great
difficulty discern the One True Church and Eucharist from
false shows and appearances. This leads me

6. To speak of the unity of the place, in which the True in what
Eucharist is celebrated. It is true, the place for offering this

Sacrifice is not One in the plain literal sense, but in mystery 'j1

only; just as the Bread is One. The sacrifices of the Jews,

from the time of David, were confined to one place, in the

strict and most obvious sense. The woman of Samaria ob- John iv. 20.

serves that, according to the judgment of all the Jews, " Jeru

salem was the place where men ought to worship ;" and,

indeed, " He, who by Moses' Law offered a burnt-offering or Lev. xvii. 9.

sacrifice, and brought it not unto the door of the tabernacle

of the congregation, was to be cut off from among his people."

But the Christian Religion was intended for a universal reli

gion; and, under the Gospel, "the pure offering" is to be Mai. i. n.

" offered in every place." Our Saviour has decreed, that

men shall no longer worship at Jerusalem or mount Geri- John iv. 21.

zim only; yet all places, in which the Pure Offering is pre

sented to God, are mystically One. There can be no doubt

but that, in great cities, the Christians of the first ages had

several places for holding their public assemblies. It is

certain that, soon after our Saviour's Ascension, three Acts u. 41.

thousand were converted at Jerusalem by one sermon

preached by St. Peter ; and, in a short time after this,

five thousand more. Now let us suppose that one half of Acts iv. 4.

these eight thousand were such as came thither to worship

at Jerusalem, and that the other four thousand only were

inhabitants of that city; yet, it is utterly incredible, that

such a number could have a place of assembly sufficient to

receive them all at once ; and we are to consider that this

Church was in a growing state ; for, a while after, we read

of "great numbers added to the Lord, multitudes both of Acts v. 14.

men and women." It is reasonable to believe, that in twenty

or thirty years' time their number must still be trebled or at

least doubled; and the same may be said of all the great

222 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, cities, in which Christianity was preached. And, before Con-
- — stantine's time, there could not probably be fewer than
twenty thousand Christian communicants in every one of
the most noted cities, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Carthage. Tertullian tells us, that the Christians were
a tenth part of Carthage in his time ; for he asks Scapula
the persecuting governor, whether he intended to decimate
that city, that is, kill every tenth man, for being a Christian.
Now let us suppose that the whole number of inhabitants
was but two hundred thousand, yet, if the Christians were a
tenth part, they could not be less than twenty thousand.
There is just reason to believe that there was more than
double the number of inhabitants ; and if so, then the
number of Christians must be doubled too. But let us
make some allowance for the warmth of Tertullian's temper ;
and, granting that there were but ten thousand grown com
municants, yet, how can it seem credible that, during the
times of persecution, it was possible for the Christians to
have a Church large enough for ten thousand men and
women at once to meet in ? And, if this could be done, yet
where is there a voice strong enough to reach the ears of
such an audience ? And if there were ten thousand at
Carthage, there must probably be much greater numbers at
Rome and Alexandria, to mention no other cities at present.
And what possible occasion could they have at Rome for
forty-six Presbyters, upon supposition that they had but one
congregation ? And this was above fifty years before Con-
stantine's conversion ; and, during this tract of time, there
can be no doubt but that the number of Christians was
much enlarged. Mr. Binghamb has observed from Optatus,
that there were above forty Churches at Rome in the time of
Dioclesian's persecution. And we are certain, that, about the
year 250, Dionysius of Alexandria0 mentions several places of
assembly in the suburbs of this city ; and he speaks likewise
of the Cemeteries or places where the Martyrs died or lay
buried, and where it is well known the Christians used to
hold their assemblies. Yet, during all this time, Cyprian and

b See Mr. Bingham's Antiquities, c Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib.

book ix. chap. v. sect. 1 . [vol. iii. p. vii. cap. ii.
127. Ed. Lond. 1840.]

OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 223

Ignatius allow but One Altar in one city or diocese. It is not CHAP,
worth disputing, whether there was no other Altar but that —
in the Bishop's Church ; or whether every lesser assembly had
an Altar fixed in it, and the Eucharist celebrated upon it ; for
whether the one or the other practice prevailed, it is certain
the Altar was One, the Eucharist One. Christ's Body was
more divided by the Eucharist's being consecrated in the
several lesser assemblies by Presbyters, acting under the same
Bishop, and using the same Liturgy that he did, than if it
had at first been consecrated at the Bishop's Altar, and
portions from thence sent to the other congregations ; which
some suppose to have been the real practice. St. Clement of
Romed admonishes the Christians at Corinth, that " Sacrifices
are not offered everywhere but at Jerusalem only, nor at
every place there neither, but before the sanctuary and at
the altar ;" from whence it seems plain, that this holy man
thought the place for the Christian Sacrifice to be One in
some sense, though not in the literal. And Cyril of Alexan
dria6 explains it very well, when he tells us, " It is not lawful
to celebrate the Christian mystery in every place, at discre
tion ; for the only agreeable and proper place is, in truth,
the Holy City, that is, the Church, in which there is a law
ful Priest, where sacred offices are performed by sanctified
hands." And Cyprian, long before him, had said the same
thing in other words f; " The Flesh of Christ and the Holy of
the Lord cannot be carried out of doors, nor is there any
other house for believers besides that One, the Church." Not
that the primitive Christians thought the Christian worship
confined to one natural place, as the Jewish sacrifices were.
No, it is certain, that when heathens or heretics drove them
away from their former place of worship, they did by the
first opportunity settle themselves in another ; and, from that
time forward, that was the One Eucharist within this district,
which was celebrated at the new place of worship. And, if
we will speak strictly, the Israelites themselves, during the
time of their pilgrimage in the wilderness, had not one fixed
and certain place for performing their public devotions ; for,
in every encampment which they made, a new spot of ground
was laid out for the tabernacle of the congregation ; and,
d b. p. 1. Ap. 1. 1,). c a. p. 43. Ap. f h. p. 11. Ap.

224 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST.

CHAP, from their departing from Mount Sinai until they came to
- — p — Jordan, they had not less than thirty several encampments,
xxxiii. 15 and therefore had as many several places of religious worship;
though still but one, at one time or in one encampment. It
is true, their altar during all this time was one and the same,
and so was the tabernacle, and the high-priest, who officiated
in it until he died at Mount Hor ; and the very plot of ground
was, in some sense, one; I mean, it was that, on which the
cloud of glory rested. The Unity of the Christian Eucharist
is not of such a nature as to confine it to any one spot of
ground or to one material Altar, but only to forbid two places
or Altars in opposition to each other. If the Priests and
people are banished from one place and Altar, they are with
all convenient speed to provide another ; and if the heat of
persecution will not permit them to do this, they are to
assemble where they can with the greatest safety ; and any
board or stone will supply the place of an Altar, so it be the
most decent that can at present be procured. And if they
are forced to shift the place of their assembly every month or
every week in the year, and to have as many Altars as places
of worship, yet still, all these places and Altars are mystically
One ; and the several Eucharists, administered in them and
offered on them, are but the One Eucharist, the same that was
first offered by Christ, and has in all following ages been
offered by His Church ; for the Flesh of Christ is One, the
Spirit, Which sanctifies It, is One.

CHAP. IV.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

ALTHOUGH the Eucharist, administered by vicious Priests
and received by wicked people, be indeed the one true Eu
charist, so long as these Priests and people are in communion
with the Catholic Church; and though the pious Christian
by receiving the Sacrament in a congregation, which consists
for the most part of men greatly corrupted both in doctrine
and manners, does certainly reap all the benefit that can be
expected from this holy ordinance ; yet all such Priests and
people must pay dear in another world for their profanation
of these Divine mysteries. And lest men should go on
securely in eating and drinking their own condemnation,
Christ has left an authority in His Church to expel them
from the Lord's Table, who live as men unworthy of so great
blessings. I shall dispatch what I have to say on this subject
under the following heads; viz.,

1 . The nature of this spiritual censure of excommunication ;

2. The effects and consequences of it ;

3. The method of loosing men from it ;

4. The ends and reasonableness of this censure ;

5. The corruptions under which it has fallen.

1. As to the nature of excommunication, I shall thus Excommu-
describe it ; Excommunication in the primitive Church was what. '
a sentence passed by the authority of Christ upon a commu
nicant by the Bishop or his substitutes, for some obstinate
error in faith or practice, whereby the offender was deprived
of the benefit of the Eucharist and of all familiar society with
Christian people.

1. It was a sentence passed by the authority of Christ ; instituted
for He Himself declared, that what was bound by His -^ati .xvi'ii.
Church on earth should be bound in heaven, and gave an 18-
assurance to His Apostles, that " whose sins they did retain, John xx.

JOHNSON. Q

226

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, should be retained." Therefore, when St. Paul had decreed
- an excommunication against the incestuous Corinthian, he
i Cor. v. 3. intimates, that he did this " in the Name and with the power
of our Lord Jesus Christ :" and Tertullian, therefore, calls
excommunication a " Divine censure «." It is certain that all
the ancients believed that Christ had armed His Church with
this power, and that therefore it was from God. And it is
on good grounds believed, that this discipline was exercised
in all Churches whose history is in any measure come down
to us; yet there is a passage in Clement of Alexandria11,
which some learned men do take to mean, that " some
[Bishops or Priests], after they have divided the Eucharist,
permit every one of the people to take shares." But I am
persuaded that he, who impartially examines the words, will
find, that what Clement says is this ; that " some, after they
have distributed the Eucharist, suffer every one of the people
to carry away a piece." It was the practice of the Churches
of Africa and Egypt, to which Clement belonged, to let the
people carry home some part of the consecrated Bread to be
eaten at discretion. Clement is very far from saying, that
every one of the people that desired it had the Communion
administered to him ; but [he says] , that all that were allowed
to receive might also take some of the remainder of the con
secrated Bread.

2. It was a sentence never passed in the primitive Church
but by a Bishop or by some substituted by him. And for
this I appeal to all that are versed in Church-history, and
especially in the ancient Canons. Priests1 indeed might

Adminis
tered by
Bishops.

« Tert. Apol., c. 39. [Ibidem etiam
exhortationes, castigationcs, et censura
Divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum
pondere, ut apud certos de Dei con-
spectu ; summumque futuri judicii
praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit,
ut a communieatione oratioiris et con-
ventus et omnis sancti commercii re-
legetur.]

h Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 1. [torn. i.
p. 318. Ed. Potter, Oxon. 1715.] 3Av-
ayttr) roivvv a^u TOVTW So/a/uafeij/
ff(f>as avrovs' rbv fj.fi/, el &£tos Ae-yeti/
re Kal viro/j.i''f)/ui.aTa KaTa\ifj.irdvfiv' rbv
Se, et aKpoaaOai re Kal €i>Tvyxav*w 81-
/catos. rj Kal T^V Evxapurriav rifts Sia-
, cos f6os, avrbv 8^7 fKacrrov rov

It seems to me, that Stave 1/j.avTfs sig
nifies 'having distributed' or 'ad
ministered,' rather than 'having di
vided.' His meaning is, that all who
had received the Sacrament were by
some Bishops or Priests suffered to
carry a piece home with them. What
was done by some in Egypt in Cle
ment's days was grown into a common
custom in that Church in St. Basil's
days, as you may see in Part I. of
Unbloody'Sacrifice, pp.[343,]&c. This
was practised in Africa in Tertullian's
time, as you may there also see.

' See the last Canon of Theophilus
Alex, in Beveridge's Pandect., vol. ii.
p. 175.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 227

repel obstinate offenders from the Sacrament in places re- CHAP.
mote from the Bishop's Seat ; but this was not an excommu —
nication, but only a forbearing to give the Sacrament to the
offender, until the Bishop's pleasure was known. It is true
the Priests of old sat on the same bench with the Bishops,
and their advice was taken in this and all other matters ; but
they could only advise, not control. If the Bishop was dead,
and none yet chosen to succeed him ; yet the Priests, in
want of a Bishop of their own, invited some neighbouring
Bishops to direct them in matters of this nature, as we learn
by that remarkable example of the Roman Clergy upon the
death of Fabian their Bishop k. Priests did sometimes sit as
judges in such matters, but then it was by virtue of a special
commission from the Bishop ; and, even in this case, it was
not unusual to join one1 or more Bishops to be commis
sioners together with them. I have, in the First Partm of this
work, proved that Bishops and Priests under them have the
only power of consecrating and administering the Eucharist
intrusted with them by Christ and by the constant universal
practice of the Church ; and from thence it must unavoidably
follow, that they alone have the power of withholding it.

3. This sentence was never passed on any but commu- Passed on
nicants, I mean, such as had been baptized and admitted to comimmi-
the Eucharist ; as all were in the ancient Church, as soon at cants>
least as they came to years of discretion. Catechumens"

were liable to be censured, but not to be excommunicated ;
for they were not yet admitted to the Eucharist, and there
fore could not be deprived of a privilege, which they did not
yet enjoy.

4. Excommunication was never passed in the primitive inflicted for
Church but for some gross errors either in faith or practice, ^"ss errors
or both. If there were no sin, no gross sin, there was nothing

to be retained. In many cases, it was necessary that the
offender should be admonished once and again, before the
last remedy (I mean excommunication) was used. Our Matt,
Saviour directs that, before we publicly arraign any one ' '
before the Church, we go and tell him his fault between him

« Cyprian, Ep. ;30. Ed. Oxon. [31. '" p. 315.

Ben.] n See Can. Nicaen, 14. Neocits. 5.

1 Cyprian, Ep. 41, 42. Cyril. Alex. 2.

Q2

228

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, and ourselves alone; and if he will not hear us, that we take
- with us one or two more, and in their presence repeat our
admonition ; and this rule was exceeding proper, in case of
heresy or lesser sins committed by such as were yet in actual
communion with the Church. It does not appear, that any
man was ever excommunicated in the primitive Church for
one or some few acts of intemperance or lesser injustice.
If by admonition he was restrained from running into
scandalous habits of these sins, he was safe from this spiri
tual censure. And the same may be said in case of heresy :
if one that was in communion with the Catholic Church did
publish any false doctrine, he was not expelled out of the
Church, unless he was so obstinate as to withstand the admo
nition and arguments which were used for his conviction.
Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, never appears to have been laid
under any censure, though his heresy was very gross ; because
he was open to conviction, and reclaimed by the reproofs of
his neighbouring Bishops and by the reasoning of Origen.
If the crime consisted in one single fact, as murder, idolatry,
or perjury, then it was not sufficient to forbear these sins
for the future, as in the former instances : therefore, in this
case, it was to little purpose to admonish the offender to leave
his sin ; for what he had already done made him liable to ex
communication.

Yet no man in the primitive Church was laid under the
sentence of excommunication, unless he were obstinate in
his error. If, in case of heresy or lesser crimes, he hearkened
to the admonition of his Pastors, he was, as has been said,
still continued in communion ; and if his crime were that of
murder or idolatry, yet he might escape the sentence of ex
communication by a free voluntary confession and putting
himself into the state of public repentance. He was indeed
in this case obliged to abstain from the Communion, until
the time of his repentance was ended; but he was not cast
out of the Church, or delivered to Satan, except he appeared
to be hardened in his crime. And this was the case of the
incestuous Corinthian ; he sinned with a high hand, he had
raised a party in the Church, and hoped by this means to
out-dare the Apostle. If he had of himself become a penitent,
he had by this means prevented the censure of excommunica-

The error
must be
attended
with obsti
nacy.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 229

tion; but St. Paul knew that he was a sturdy offender, and CHAP,
therefore decreed this censure against him. It is very pro- -
bable, that this incestuous person had been admonished to dis
card his lewd companion and to repent of his uncleanness,
but had withstood those gentle remedies ; nay, it should seem
that some attempt had been made to exercise discipline upon
him. For otherwise, how could it have appeared that he and
his party were puffed up, and that too many of the Church
of Corinth were tardy in neglecting to do their part, in order
to have him " that had done this deed taken away from among i Cor. v. 2.
them?" When Andronicus, the governor of Ptolemais, in
the beginning of the fifth century, had been guilty of great
outrages upon the people, and, in the opinion of Synesius
the Bishop of that city, deserved to be excommunicated; yet
a synod of neighbouring Bishops, upon Andronicus's promise
of reformation, advised and prevailed with him to delay the
passing of that sentence against him.

5. The censure of excommunication deprived men of two
privileges :

(1.) The first of these privileges was the Eucharist, and all What men
that solemn part of Divine worship, which was peculiar to communf-"
the Faithful, that is, the Communicants. catiou-

(2.) Excommunication did likewise deprive men of the
benefit of all familiar conversation with Christian people. It
was not lawful "even to eat" with such a man, by the direction i Cor. v. 11.
of St. Paul himself. These particulars are so well known,
that I need not further insist on the proof of them.

But it does particularly deserve our reflection, that ex- Excommu-

-. . . , . , . , . . nication

communication was never passed, in the Apostolical times, always
but in the face of that Church to which the offender belonged; g^j°.
and, indeed, the sentence itself was at first only an order from biy forwor-
the Bishop to cast the offender out of the congregation. The
primitive Fathers followed the example of St. Paul ; and there
fore, when any communicant had been guilty of gross crimes,
and would not otherwise be reformed, they charged the Clergy
and people to " cast the offender out from among them, when
they were met together." The most ancient Form of Excom
munication, that is now anywhere extant, is only this ; that °

0 Ap. Const., lib. ii. c. 1C. 'Ifiuw Se <ru ('ETriffKoirf) rbv rj/j.apr'qKdTa, Kf\fva~ov
avrbv e

230 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, "when the Bishop sees the offender, having expressed his
— concern and anguish of mind, he should command him to be

turned out of doors." And in the places more remote, or in
the Bishop's absence, the Priests, commissioned by him, pro
nounced this sentence. Tertullianp, speaking of the Chris
tian assemblies for worship, tells us that in them the Divine
sentence, meaning excommunication, is executed.
What share Nor are we to consider the people as bare witnesses or

the people . .

had in this spectators in this solemn affair. It was expected of them
that they should make their complaints, produce their evi
dence, if the case were not notorious, and draw up their plea
against the offender; and that they should join with the
Bishop and Clergy in expressing their grief for the scandal
done to the Church, and the mischief which he had pulled
upon his own head by his open crimes. All this St. Paul
intimates to be the duty of the people ; when he rebukes the
2 Cor. xii. Christians at Corinth, because they had not mourned, that
i Cor. 5. 2. the incestuous person might be taken away from among them.
Nay, further, the people were to shew their approbation of the
sentence passed upon the offender by joining to cast or thrust
him out of the congregation, and by avoiding his company
while he remained obstinate ; and therefore excommunication
might justly be styled ' a punishment inflicted of or by ' many/
even as many as belonged to that Diocese ; nay, by all Chris
tians throughout the world. For as the Eucharist was One
all the world over, arid as Christians coming from the most
remote parts were admitted to the Lord's Table, if they
brought letters from the Bishop of the Church, to which they
had formerly belonged ; so excommunication was universal ;
for no Christian could be admitted to Communion in a strange
Church without such letters from his former Bishop, which
were never granted to a person under this sentence ; so that,
by being excommunicated by his own Bishop, he was shut
out from Communion in all other Churches under heaven,
except he could find a Bishop false to his trust.

and Ter101* ^U<* even ™ ^ n^^ century, when the primitive sim-
with the ' plicity began to decline, and when the sentence of excom-
sufficient munication was drawn and passed with more state and cir-

P Apolog., c. 39. Coimus ad litera- ibidem etiam exhortationes, castiga-
rum Divinarum commemorationem — tiones, et censura Divina — .

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 231

cumstance, yet it still ran in the name of the Church to CHAP.
which the offender belonged, and not of the Bishop only. -
And though the neighbouring Bishops met in Synod to give Jtherhelp

their judgment in the case, yet still the sentence was not
formed in such a manner, as to imply that the authority of nication-
the Synod was necessary to this purpose. Of this we have
an instance in Andronicus. If indeed the offender had been
a Bishop, then he could not have had this or any other
censure passed on him but by a considerable number of his
own brethren ; but Andronicus and his complices were lay
men ; therefore the Bishop, with his clergy and people, were
sufficient to execute this sentence. But because he was a
person of great quality and power, therefore Synesius was
willing to take the advice of the neighbouring Bishops in so
great a case. I will here insert the translation of this
sentence of excommunication, because I take it to be the
most ancient form of this sort, that is now to be found.
" The Church of Ptolemais q gives this charge to all her sister
Churches throughout the world. Let no temple of God be
open to Andronicus and Thoas, and their complices. Let
every holy place and its verge be shut against them. The
devil has no part in Paradise, and if he comes in clandes
tinely is driven out. I charge, therefore, every private man
and Governor not to dwell in the same house, nor eat at the
same table with them; especially [I charge] Priests, that
they neither converse with them while living, nor attend
their funerals when dead. If any one shall despise this
Church as being small, and shall receive those who are ex
communicated by her, as if it were needless to regard her,

q ['ETrt rovrois, rj IlToAejUatSos eKKA.77- TOVS OUTTJS, ws OVK avdyKf] rfj

aia raSe Trpbs ras airavraxov 777? eau- 7re/0e0-0ar 2Wa> ax'ivas T^V fKK\r}aiav,

TT)S aSeA^as SmraTTeTof 'AvSpoviiccp V ^iav 6 Xpicrbs dvai fiovXero.i. 'O 5e

Kal rots avrov, ®6avri KOI ro?s avrov, TOIOVTOS, etre AewTTjs forlv etre irpecr-

/xrjSei/ avoryvixrOoa re'yuei/os rov ©eou' fivrepos eftre ^TriaKoiros, Trap" TJ/UUV eV

OTTOS auToTs Ifpbs aTro/ce/cAeurflco, Kal 'AvSpov'iKou /j.oipa -reTa^rrai, Kal o&re

(TTjK^s, Kal TrepiySoAos. OVK e<m rep e'/^aAoD/xei/ avrw Se^iov, otfre airb TTJS

§ia&6\(t} ^(pos eV TrapaSetVy, bs K&V avrrjs irore <jiTt\<j6^Qa- TroAAoG 5?) 5e-

\a6ri SiaSvs e|eAauj/€Ta/. fla.pa.ivu /nev •fiffo/j.ev Koiixavriaai rijs aTro^p-fjrov re-

ovv Kal iSiurr] -navrl Kal apxovn, ^T* AerTjs, TO?S iGeXytraffiv ex6'" /*epf8a

iov oi/Ty fj.'fjrf 6fj.oTpdirf^ov yi- yuer' 'AvSpovtKov Kal ®6avros. — Sjnesii

lepeScri 5e 5ia<pfp6vTws, ot ^urjTe Epist. 58. Ed. Paris. 1612. Vid. Gib-

avrovs irpocrfpovat, ^re reA- bon's Decline and Fall of the Roman

ras arv^irpoirf^ovcTiv. El Se Empire, vol. ii. p. 484. Ed. Lond.

TLS ws /ui/fpo7roA?Tiv OTroo'/ci'^aAtVet T^V 1838.]
Kal SeffTot TOVS

232 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, because she is poor; let him be esteemed as a man that
' — divides the Church, which Christ would have to be One. But

such a man, whether he be Levite, Priest, or Bishop, shall by
us be placed in the same rank with Andronicus ; we will
neither salute him, nor eat with him; much less will we
communicate the ineffable Sacrifice to them that choose to
have their portion with Andronicus and Thoas." This
sentence, though for some time delayed, was afterwards put
in execution.

Pastors But if the people were backward in giving information and

cerned to"" evidence against offenders, yet it was the Pastors' part to
f5ctedm~ remind them of their duty, and not to permit public crimes
to pass without censure. Therefore St. Paul takes notice to
2 Cor. xii. the Corinthians of several amongst them ' f that had not
repented of the fornication, uncleanness, and lasciviousness,
which they had committed;" and in relation to these he
2 Cor. xii. declares, that " when he came again, he would not spare, but
use sharpness, according to the power which God had given
him." And because the generality of the Christians at
Corinth did not seem disposed to prosecute these offenders,
2 Cor. xiii. he declares, that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses
every word should be established :" by which he means
that, as he would not proceed to sentence without full evi
dence, so he should esteem two or three witnesses sufficient
to convict any offender.

The mean- II. I proceed to shew the effects and consequences of
lireringto excommunication. And, as to the immediate outward effects
of it, we have seen that they were a separation from com
munion with the Church both in sacred matters and in
conversation. What was further meant by turning the of
fender out of the doors of the Church, is expressed by St.
Paul by " delivering him to Satan." Now the most plain
and obvious sense of this phrase is, that the offender by
being cast out from the Church was thereby publicly and
solemnly given up to his proper lord and master. It was
thereby declared, that he belonged not to Christ or to the
kingdom of light, but to the prince and kingdom of dark
ness. The whole Church thereby disowned and discarded
the excommunicated person, as one who by his sins had
evidently rendered himself a son of perdition, an enemy to

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 233

truth, peace, and holiness; and therefore they resigned him CHAP.
up to his true owner.

Some both of the ancients of the fourth century and of Not inflict-
our modern Divines do suppose that St. Paul, by delivering ing
the offender to Satan, did mean to say, that by virtue of this
sentence the devil had such power over him, as to be thereby
enabled to inflict pains and diseases on him. Now I have
no great reason to contradict these great men in this parti
cular ; so it be allowed, that these pains and diseases were an
additional punishment over and above the excommunication,
which was most certainly passed upon him, and clearly ex
pressed by the phrase of ' being taken' or put ' away from i Cor. v. 2.
among them ;' but I must confess, I do not see sufficient
reason to believe that St. Paul intended any such thing ;
nor does it appear from any other text of Scripture, that
either the incestuous person, or Hymenseus and Alexander, i Tim. i.
the only men who are elsewhere said to have fallen under u
this censure, were ever treated by Satan in this manner.
When St. Paul smote Elymas with blindness, he found no
occasion to make the devil the instrument of executing this
sentence on him ; for he expressly says, " The hand of the Acts xm.
Lord is upon thee." Much more might be said, if there were
occasion for me to labour in this point ; but I look on this
as a mere conjecture of some great men, and as such dis
miss it.

Certainly, he, who considers what it was to be delivered to The se-
Satan in the sense I first mentioned, will easily perceive that sentence of6
it was a sentence sufficient to raise the greatest horror and n*
agonies in the mind of any man, who believed the Gospel to
be true. For a Christian to hear himself pronounced un
worthy to continue in communion with the Church, to see
himself driven away from God's people, from the assembly of
the saints, and debarred from the use of the greatest privi
lege on earth, which is the public worship of God, and
yielded up to Satan as his own slave and property, and
declared, as Andronicus was in the form of excommunication
above recited, to be in the same state (while he remained im
penitent) with the fallen angels, and to have no part in Para
dise, by a sentence passed by a commissioned officer of Christ
Jesus, backed and seconded by the unanimous consent of the

234 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, people: the judge and the whole assembly expressing at the
- same time their greatest sorrow and most affectionate concern
for his soul: for the offender to consider, that he had so
severe a sentence passed on him by the most merciful and
tender court that ever was upon earth ; that the only good
and valuable body of men in this world would for the future
discard and abandon him, and avoid him, as they wrould one
infected with the plague; this, besides the reproof of his
own conscience, must be more than enough to awaken him
into a sense of his former folly. I mean this, upon supposi
tion that he did in earnest believe the Christian Religion;
and if he did not, then, as his condition was desperate before,
so now his hypocrisy was made manifest to others. Ter-
tullian justly says of the primitive excommunication, that it
was as it were "the doomsday of a sinner in this present
life1"," by which he was banished from the presence of the
Lord and from the society of true Israelites, and before
hand delivered up to the tormentor ; who, when we have done
evil, is always lying at the door, as ready to seize and devour
us. And the sinner, who believed that what was thus bound
on earth should be bound in heaven too, must therefore look
on the Divine sentence as too heavy to be borne with any
degree of ease or patience. And, indeed, nothing could
make it tolerable but a fatal stupidness of mind, proceeding
from want of faith, in the man who was excommunicated,
and to whom therefore the excommunication passed by the
Church was a most certain presage of eternal condemnation ;
and so much the rather, because the offender was altogether
insensible of it; if any thing could lighten the weight of
this sentence to a sincere believer, when he knew he had
deserved it, it must be the hopes, which God and the Church
had given him, of being delivered from it.

But there were many men under the effects of an excom
munication, who could not be formally excommunicated.
They could not be turned out of the Church, because they
never came within the doors of it ; and yet were in all other
respects treated as men under this grievous sentence. Such
were

r Summumque futuri judicii prae- tus et omnis sancti commercii rele-
judicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut getur. — Apolog., c. 39.
a communicatione orationis et conven-

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 235

1. They, who had formerly been of the Church, but after- CHAP.
wards deserted it, either out of downright looseness and infi

delity, and so became apostates to the Jewish or the heathen under the
religion ; or, as Porphyry did, lived in neglect and contempt of cfmmuniST-
all public worship whatsoever. These are said to " fall away," tion-
to " sin" or err " wilfully," by St. Paul ; and this is called x. 26.
" the sin unto death" by St. John. To feast3 with the Jews 1 Johnv.
or Gentiles, or to have but once eat with heathens of things
sacrificed to idols, or to have performed any act of idolatrous
worship to false gods, was a crime that made a Christian
liable to excommunication ; but if he not only once or twice
worshipped an idol, but persisted in that folly, and absented
himself from the Christian Church, he was worse than a per
son excommunicated, as we shall presently see. If a man
were one of those who " made divisions," that called himself
a Christian, but separated himself from the true Apostolical
Church, as the author or abettor of some new dangerous
opinion, he could not be formally expelled out of the Church;
but such a one was to be " marked" or ' noted/ and sound Rom. xvi.
Christians were warned not to keep company with him ; they in. '14.
were not, properly speaking, excommunicated by the Church,
but "self-condemned." Sometimes a Bishop, duly ordained, Tit. Hi. n.
and who had formerly been sound in his faith and practice,
broached or espoused some heretical doctrine, and misled his
own flock. This was the case of Eustathius, Bishop of Se-
bastia, and of many others, who followed the pestilent doc
trine of Arius. Now they and their people could not be
excommunicated, that is, turned out of the Church in the
primitive Apostolical form : but yet they were looked on as
persons under that censure ; and Eustathius was with his ad
herents struck with an anathema by the Synod of Gangra,
and the Arians by the first of Nice. And I suppose that by
'anathema' they only meant a full and perfect sentence of
condemnation pronounced against a great body of men at
once, whereby it was declared to be in the same condition as
if they had been excommunicated, or rather worse.

2. Such were they, who had never been of the Apostolical And such
Church, but [were] bred in heresy or schism. They could
not therefore be cast out of the Church ; and yet were by the

• Can. A p. 6f>.

236

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP.
IV.

Who were
finally cut
off, or ex-
communi
cated.

primitive Christians avoided, as if they had been under a
formal excommunication, and were oftentimes by the Bishops
in their synods pronounced to be 'anathema/ They were,
while they continued in their errors, treated, as the heathen
and publicans were by the Jews ; and yet many of them were
upon their conversion received into the Church without re-
baptization. And this brings me to consider,

III. The method of loosing men from the sentence of ex
communication in the primitive Church. And here, before I
proceed, I shall observe that some were so wholly and finally
cut off from the Church, that they never had any hopes of
being restored : such were they, who having formerly been
excommunicated for some scandalous offence, were upon their
repentance received to communion, but yet afterwards re
lapsed into the same or some other grievous crime. For no
one in the primitive Church could be loosed from a second
sentence of excommunication ; for they allowed but one re
pentance* for gross heinous sins after Baptism; therefore
such a man was left to the mercy of God. Thus a false
accuser of his brethren, having been excommunicated and
then reconciled, but who yet afterwards fell into the same
crime, was finally cut off. The Church did not think herself
empowered to receive such an one into communion ; but he
was in the same condition with the apostate; it was im
possible u, by the laws of Christianity as then understood, to
renew such an one to repentance, or to admit him a second
time to penance, and by that means to pardon. Others, who
were not absolutely denied reconciliation, yet had by their
conduct in the main course of their lives, before they had
drawn upon themselves the sentence of excommunication,
shewed that they were but cold indifferent Christians ; and
therefore, when they were fallen under this sentence by
reason of some flagrant crime, they were not easily admitted
again to communion, for fear they should return to their

* [" Alia pcenitentia non est, nisi
ilia, cum in aquam descendimus et
accipimus remissionem peccatorum
nostrorum, ulterius non peccare, sed
in castitate permanere — post vocatio-
nem illam magnam et sanctam, si quis
tentatus fuerit a diabolo et peccaverit,
unam poenitentiam habet. Si autem

subinde peccet, et poenitentiam agit,
non proderit homini talia agenti; diffi
cile enirn vivet Deo."J — Herm. Pastor,
lib. ii. Hand. iv. sect. 3. [Ed. Hefele,
Tubingae, 1842.] Apost. Constitutt,
lib. ii. c. 43. [Ed. Labbe and Cossart.j
u Heb. vi. 6. See Grot, and Ham.
in loc.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 237

vomit. Nay, sometimes, when men of unblemished lives CHAP.
were excommunicated for any crying enormous sin, the —
Church, out of a pious resentment of the scandal given by
the fall of such a person, kept him for a long while under
the sentence of excommunication, without allowing him the
privilege of standing among the Penitents, or coming within
the doors of the Church. Serapion was a person of a fair
character, if we may believe Eusebius ; but when, by sacrific
ing to idols in time of persecution, he had given very great
offence to the Christian Church, Dionysius of Alexandria,
his Bishop, with the Clergy and people of that Diocese, out
of a holy indignation against the base perfidiousness of such
a man, were deaf to all his entreaties and intercessions ; none
either of the Clergy or laity would speak to the Bishop on
his behalf; nor would Dionysius regard the offender's peti
tions, when seconded by no one else. It often happenedx,
that men remained in this condition, as Serapion did, until
they were in extreme danger of dying. It was a general ruley
of discipline never to deny them the Communion, when they
were thought to be passing into the other world. And, by
giving singular proof of their real repentance and conversion,
they were often admitted to it before. However, none but
apostates and relapsers were wholly and everywhere excluded
from it. For though some grand offenders2, beside these, were
said to be " entirely cast out" and " cut off" from the Church ;
yet there is reason to believe, that this general rule of giving
the Eucharist to all, excepting those now mentioned, at the
point of death, did for the most part at least prevail, unless
they were such as never shewed their desire of it before.

But in ordinary cases, when the crime was not exceedingly Common
enormous, or the offender not perfectly profligate and ex-
travagantly wicked or hardened, the Church was so far from Clled-
being backward in admitting men to the state of Penitents
and then into perfect communion, that she took all possible
care that no man should continue long under the sentence of
excommunication. In the most ancient description of ex-

* These were called ^Se/crot, that is, z Such as those mentioned, Can. Ap.

'men not received' into the station of 30, viz., Clergymen, who made bold to

Penitents. — Can. Ap. 12, Bas. 81. officiate, when regularly deposed ; or

y Can. Nic. 13. who had purchased holy orders.

238 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, communication before-mentioned, " The Deacons follow him
' — that is cast out of the Church, and take hold of him, and

some of them go in to the Bishop and intercede in his behalf;
the Bishop orders him to be brought in again, and judges
whether he is fit to be received ; and if he think him so to
be, then enjoins him a certain time of fasting and humilia
tion, at the end of which he is again admitted to full com
munion a." And there is no reason to doubt but this was
the common method of proceeding in this case, and that
the generality of offenders did not long continue under this
heavy censure.

Deferring If they did indeed for years together rest easy and patient
increased under it, by this means they increased their burden, and
rendered their reconciliation more difficult. If they deferred
their endeavours for obtaining the peace of the Church, un
til13 they found themselves to be in a dying condition, this
was the greatest aggravation of their obstinacy, and in this
case they were rarely, if at all, restored to communion : but
ordinary offenders were probably soon melted into repent
ance, and convinced of the necessity of submitting to dis
cipline, and thereby regaining the privilege of perfect com
munion ; and this was to be done, not presently and by one
slight confession of their faults, but by several steps and
degrees.

1. The excommunicate person must apply himself to the
Deacon, that he would speak in his behalf to the Bishop, or
the Priest who acted in his stead, and put up his request to
him, that he might be admitted into the state of a Peni
tent. And this request was not presently granted to heinous
offenders, but they were obliged to stand without the doors
of the Church, craving of the Clergy and people, as they
entered in, to intercede with God and the Bishop in their
behalf, that they might be permitted to stand among the
Penitents and give proof of their sincere conversion. For

0 Ap. Const., lib. ii. c. 16. 'E|eA0<Wt OVTOOS air6\vffov.

a.vr$ iriKpaiveaQtoffav 01 ALO.KOVOI, KOI b Cypr., Ep. 55. Ed. Oxon. [52. Ed.

eTnfVjToCj/Tes Karfffx^rcacrav avrbv e|co Ben.) Poenitentiam non agentes —

TTJS fKK\rioias, KOI etVeAfltWes virep prohibendos omnino censuimus a spe

auToG (Te ('ETn'tr/coTroi/) tpuTaTOKTav — communicationis et pacis, si in infir-

r6rf ffv K€\€i><T€is fl(T€\6e?v avTbv, KCU initate atque in periculo cceperint de-

avaKpivas el jueraj/oe? — trnftwaas avrbv precari.
Ka.ro. rb

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 239

as the primitive Church believed that a special repentance CHAP.
was necessary for them, who had been guilty of such crimes —
as deserved excommunication; so they judged no repentance
to be available in this case, but a long, solemn, public humi
liation in the sight of men as well as of God. Therefore no
man could hope (except in some special cases) to have this
censure wholly taken off in the primitive Church, until he
had first performed the penance enjoined him by the Bishop.
The allowing men in this condition a place among the Peni
tents was esteemed a favour and indulgence; and it was
expected that the offender should ask it, and shew himself
worthy of it by a modest0, humble importunity, and a dili
gence that yet would bear with delay; for it is not to be
supposed, that the Bishop would in things of this nature
proceed without due deliberation ; the exercise of discipline
was the greatest trial of his prudence ; therefore his proceed
ings must not be hasty.

As soon as the offender was admitted to penance, one part Penitents
of his sentence was immediately revoked ; I mean, he was JJ°e ™ml_
from that time forward permitted to converse familiarly with
Christian people d. No man was forbid to have society with
the Penitents, but only with them that were excommunicated,
that is, who remained hardened in that condition, or whose
case was so bad that they were not yet allowed the privilege
of penance ; and they who had gained this ground were no
longer said to be excommunicated6, but suspended from com
munion^ or separated from the Eucharist for a set time.
During the time of penance they were permitted to enter
into the lower part of the Church, and to hear the Scriptures,
Sermons, Hymns, and Psalms ; and there was a particular
prayer used by the Bishop in behalf of those that were in a
state of penance; but they were not suffered to be present at
the morning g and evening prayers of the Faithful in the more
ancient times ; yet in the sixth century this was allowed11.

c Cypriano Clerus Rom., Ep. 30. 8t' a/JLaprias atyopiaQfiari Trap' V/JLWV ('Eiri-

Ed. Oxon. [31. Ed. Ben. Multum (TK6iv<av) Kal (rwaj'a&Tpftpeo'df, nal av-

illis proficiet petitio modesta, postulatio va\i^€cr9f, K. r. A.
verecunda, humiiitas necessaria, pa- e ' AKOIVW^TOI, tK&a\\6fjiwoi.

tientia nun otiosa, &c. * 'A.<popt£6/jievoi..

d Ap. Const., lib. ii. c. 40, ouSe KU- K Const. Apost., lib. viii. c. 34.
\vfffis avr'bv TOV KvpieiKov \6yov, ou5t h See Binius, [torn. vi. p. 618. Ed.

Kowris Siairr]s wr'bv (£wirtis — TO?J olv Par. 1589,] a fragment of Joannes

240 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP. 2. The next was the longest and the hardest task which
- the offender was obliged to perform. I mean the penance

Ancient . ,„ . . , . i ,

penance, itself, which was indeed very severe. It consisted m frequent
fastings1, in wearing coarse and sordid clothes, in appearing
in the face of the congregation in sack-cloth and ashes,
avoiding the innocent pleasures of life, feasting, gay apparel,
ointments, bathings, and the like; but especially, in the
frequent confession of their sins before the Church, and
throwing themselves at the feet of the Clergy and people,
as they entered into the Church, in order to obtain their
prayers. This course they were commonly obliged to take
for several years together, though sometimes^ the prefixed
term of their penance was shortened by the Bishop, when he
saw some extraordinary proofs of their zeal and earnestness ;
and, especially, if the Penitentsk were dangerously sick, and
the people became intercessors with the Bishop to admit the
Penitent to the Communion. And as it was in the Bishop's
power to shorten the time of penance ; so he could, when he
saw occasion, increase or lengthen it1. And for the indul
gences granted to them who, when they had been guilty of
great crimes, were excused by the letters of dying Martyrs,
they were certainly a horrible breach and violation of Church
discipline ; and as such I pass them over. I shall there
fore only add, that the Penitent™, when the term of his hu
miliation was now expiring, was permitted to stay out the
whole Communion-Service, and therefore to be present at
the prayers, though not to partake of the Eucharist ; and the
least" penance that I can anywhere observe inflicted on the
slightest offenders was, to be immediately admitted to this
chief station of the Penitents, without being obliged to stand
at all at the lower end of the Church.

Jejunator, and in that the following tempus satisfactions, et sine petitu et

words in Latin only : In rei autem conscientia plebis, nulla infirmitate ur-

sacrae celebratione omnes qui poaniten- gente ac necessitate cogente, pax ei

tiam agunt, et noil communicant, dixi- concederetiir.

mus Catechumenorum edicto debere ' See Can. Anc. 5.

ex templo egredi, et stare in ferula ; in m Can. Nic. 11.

matutino autem, vesperis, et reliquis, n Can. Gregor. Thaumaturg. 9. It

templi aditum non eis esse prohibitum, was the penance laid by this holy man

quo minus possint ingredi et in eo on those who found the goods of others

stare, si velint. in their own houses, left there by rap-

1 See Cyprian, De Lapsis. parees ; and, after they had for some

J Can. Nic. 12. time concealed them, did freely dis-

k Cypr., Ep. 64. [Ed. Oxon. 59. Ed. cover them.
Ben.] Ut ante legitimum et plenum

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 241

There were one sort of offenders, and they none of the CHAP.
least, who yet were admitted to communion without under- .- IV' -
going this painful discipline ; I mean, heretics and schisma- and schis-
tics. For it does not appear to me, that they were generally m

condemned to do penance, but presently upon their conversion
they were placed among the Catechumens0, not the Penitents ;
and so they were in a few days admitted to Baptism, if they
were thought not to be sufficiently baptized before ; if they
were, the Bishop laid his hands on them and anointed them,
and then they were forthwith received to communion in the
Eucharist, after they had first condemned all errors, and
recanted that of which themselves had been guilty. It is
certain that, before their conversion, they were in all respects
looked on as excommunicated; it was unlawful to converse
with them, or give them a friendly salute, much more was it 2 John 10,
forbid to permit them to receive the Eucharist ; they were
believed to be under an anathema, which some would have
to import somewhat more than an excommunication ; but it
is certain that they were received to communion upon much
easier terms than they who were laid under the sentence of
excommunication for common immoralities.

3. Before Penitents were allowed to receive the Eucharist, The Abso-
the Bishop laid his hands on them, and used a prayer to God
for the pardon of their sins. Nay, in some places at least, what-
they were first received into the number of Penitents by this
solemn rite, and had it frequently repeated? during the time
of penance ; and the sin of excommunicated persons is some
times said to be loosed or forgiven by means of these prayers,
and therefore they are called ' the Absolution' of the Priest q.
But it is very clear, that the pardon of the Penitent was not
thought to be perfectly sealed and confirmed by this rite of
laying on of hands or the prayers used on this occasion ; for
then it had been absurd and inconsistent to do this over and
again. The prayers used on this occasion r were always the

0 See Can. Laod. 7, 8. Constant. 7. nitentibus a sacerdotibus imponantur.

Yet in France penance was enjoined to Cone. Carthag. 4. c. 80. [Labbe, torn.

the Novatians and other heretics on ii. p. 1444.]

their conversion; if the Canons of the q Constt. Ap., lib. ii. c. 18, rovs 5e

second Synod of Aries, and those of ^uaprrj/c^Tas vovQtrci, /cat <TriftG>v eV rfj

Agde, are of any authority. See Can. j/rjo-reux, eV rfj o^eVei f\d(f>pvvov, K. T. \.

Arel. 9. Bin., torn. i. p. 698. Can. r Yon have the Forms provided for

Agath. 60. [torn. iii. p. 716.] this occasion, Apost. Constt., lib. viii.

P Omni tempore jejunii maims pee- c. 8, 9. and it is evident, that these

JOHNSON.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, same, and they were an Absolution the first time they were
- rehearsed. And if, by calling them by this name, they had
intended to persuade men that the Penitent was fully
pardoned, there can be no reason why they should be so
very often repeated over the same person; therefore they
were called fan Absolution/ because the prayers of the
Priest were always believed to be most prevalent with God
in behalf of repenting sinners, and because by this laying on
of hands they were received into the station of Penitents,
and continued in it ; by which means they were by degrees
loosed and discharged from the bond of excommunication,
and at last received into a state of perfect grace and
pardon.

How they 4. Their reconciliation was completed, and they were de-

were per

fectly and clared to be in perfect favour with God and all Christian

solved. men, by being restored to the most eminent privilege of re
ceiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
This the ancient Church expressed by saying, that the Peni
tent was returned to his ' old pasture' and his ' former dig
nity8/ They, that have with the greatest diligence searched
into antiquity, can discover no other rite or solemnity used
upon this occasion, but barely the admitting the Penitents to
communion ; by this they were entirely acquitted and ab
solved from the censure under which their crimes had laid
them; by this their sins were remitted unto them, and so
they became once more fellow-citizens with the saints and of
the household of God, but were for ever forbid to be received
into Holy Orders.

Giving the It is true, in one case, the Holy Sacrament was administer ed
once upon to Penitents, not as a certain seal of their pardon, but as a

signification of the tenderness of the Pastor and Church to-
soiut?onAb war(^ their souls, and as an expression of their best and most
earnest wishes of their eternal peace and salvation ; I mean,
when they gave it to them upon presumption, that they were
now a-dying, before the term of their penance was expired,
and sometimes before they had been admitted into the state

prayers were used before every Com- notas CL Cotelerii in eundem.

niunion- Service, and that hands were s Ap. Constt., lib. ii. c. 41, [els ryv

laid on all the Penitents as oft as these a-pxaiav avrov vo[j.i)v — Kal ety TT]V Trpo-

prayers were repeated ; vide locum, et repay a£lcu>—.]

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 243

of Penitents, which was Serapion's case. That they did not CHAP.
intend the Eucharist as an assurance of pardon to such -
persons is evident, I think, from this, that he who had the
Sacrament indulged to him in this case, if he recovered be
yond expectation from his present sickness, was not per
mitted for the future to receive the Eucharist until the time
of his penance was completed*. Just with the same view,
toward the latter end of the fourth century, they did in the
Western Church allow the Communion to him on his death
bed, who had relapsed into his sins a second time, after he
had once been excommunicated and reconciled, contrary to
the known ancient rule. In both these cases it is most
rational to believe, that they designed not, by thus for once
granting them the Sacrament, to express their assurance, but
only their charitable hopes, of the Penitent's pardon and sal
vation. And this only proves what I have before at large as
serted", that it is not the receiving the Eucharist once or now
and then, but the constant use of it, that keeps men in a state
of Communion with God and Christ Jesus, and gives them a
well-grounded confidence of their pardon and eternal happi
ness ; for our Saviour hath declared, that " Except we feed
on the Flesh of the Son of Man, we have no life in us."
And it seems plain, that the primitive Church, by giving the
Sacrament once to a dying Penitent, did thereby declare her
hope that the man's condition was not absolutely desperate ;
and, by allowing it to be done but once, took care that she
might not be understood to own him as a settled communi
cant^ or as one that could plead a right to the constant par
ticipation of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ and
the grand blessings thereunto belonging.

IV. I am next to shew the ends and reasonableness of
excommunication ; and that, •

1. In regard to Christ and His Church. As our Saviour To the
was a preacher of righteousness, as His Church was designed communi-
to be a peculiar people, zealous of good works ; so it was
necessary, that He should not only lay strong obligations
upon men to practise the laws which He taught, but take ment of

vJce and

4 Siricii Decret. 5. of those, Qui Corpus attingunt, et Eu- error-

u Chap. II. Sect. iii. charistiam jure communieationis acci-

x This seems to me to he St. Cyprian's piunt, &c.
meaning, when he speaks (g. p. 12. Ap.)

R 2

244 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP.; the most proper course to discountenance vice in His follow-
- ers, and to « purge His floor" from all gross filth and im

purity. To think otherwise is to suppose that He intended
His Church to be a den of thieves, a sanctuary for villainy
and lewdness : and since He lays no temporal restraints or
punishments on men, no fines or imprisonments, no bodily
stripes or tortures ; it is therefore necessary, that He should
by some other means humble the arrogance of bold offenders,
or at least wipe off that scandal and reproach, which they by
their words and actions would otherwise bring on His Re
ligion and those who profess it. He never gave a com
mission to His Apostles or other Ministers to make use of
the temporal sword for the punishment of evil doers, or for
the cutting off vicious members with present death ; yet He
thought it not reasonable, that notorious sinners, hardened
malefactors, filthy debauchees, should enjoy the outward
privileges of His Church, and cause His Name to be blas
phemed by their profaneness and impiety. Therefore He
gave authority to the chief officers of His spiritual kingdom
to expel out of their society all such as should give just
offence to others by their gross errors in principle or prac
tice ; that so they who, under pretence of being Christians, do
the greatest dishonour to Him and His Gospel, might either
be ashamed into a reformation of their doctrine and manners ;
or, however, that others might be made sensible, that the
Church of Christ disowns and abhors all such workers of
iniquity.

civil pun- Some would persuade us, that, in nations where Christianity
Christian0 *s espoused and protected by the Civil Power, there can be

no furtner occasion for the exercise of discipline or excom-
itunneces- munication. And if murderers and robbers did always
meet with that punishment which they deserve from the civil
magistrates, I mean, if they were put to death, there could
indeed be no occasion for the Bishop to use the spiritual
sword of excommunication against those who had been guilty
of it. But there never was, I suppose, any Prince or state,
that did not sometimes pardon these crimes. And shall a
Christian, who has committed wilful murder, or wronged
others by open violence, be continued in the Communion of
the Church and be allowed all the privileges of it, because

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 245

the Prince hath thought fit to give him his life? If the CHAP.
magistrate grant a toleration to idolaters, must therefore the - —
Church be obliged to own them as her members, who have
polluted themselves by joining with those idolaters in their
worship ? Few Princes or states, who have professed Chris
tianity, did ever think fit to inflict any punishment on
adultery, incest, or fornication, except in some singular
cases; must therefore the Church cherish such as indulge
themselves in such foul practices ? But, above all, if a Con-
stantius climb the throne, and become a patron to Arians or
other heretics, shall the Bishops of the Church be silent, and
not dare to denounce their anathemas against those, who are
the leaders or followers of such pernicious sects and conspi
racies against truth and peace? And if it be necessary that
the Church should disavow and abandon all such vicious
members, then it is plain that she should do it in such a
manner as Christ has directed. And I make bold to add,
that no supposed league or alliance between the Church and
State can deprive the Church of this power. If any body
of Bishops and Pastors should expressly covenant with the
Prince under whom they live, that they would abdicate and
renounce this authority of excommunication, upon condition
that they might have his protection in exercising the other
parts of their function, it is evident that all such covenants
would be null and void ; for a Bishop is under a prior obliga
tion to a greater Prince than any here on earth, to make use
of the power that God has given him to the edification of His
Church. And a Bishop, without the power of excommunica
tion, is as great an absurdity as a supreme magistrate, with
out a sword for the punishment of evil doers.

2. The ends and reasonableness of excommunication are Excommu-
very apparent, in regard to the Eucharist : for this, being tended""1
the most excellent and noble institution that God ever gave a

to His Church, it being the Bread of Heaven which endureth to the EU-
to everlasting life, the true Manna, the mysterious Body and
Blood of Christ, is not to be profaned with the hands or
mouths of impious men ; this is the highest indignity that
can be offered to that most Divine Mystery. Even the
heathen took care to drive all notorious offenders from their
altars. And when the Jews had filled their hands with

246 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP, blood, and defiled themselves to such a degree, that their
— guilt appeared red as crimson, God, by His Prophet, asks

Isa. 1. 12. them, " Who hath required this at your hands, to tread My
courts ?" When the Christians at Corinth came to take the
Sacrament with divided unpeaceable minds and with heads
full of intemperance, and were so thoughtless as to commit
disorders at the very time of receiving it, St. Paul charges

1 Cor. xi. them for having ' ' eaten that Bread and drunk that Cup un
worthily ;" and thereupon, to represent their crime fully and
to the life, he tells them, they were " guilty of the Body and
Blood of Christ." For he justly supposed, that nothing could
look more odious in the eye of a sincere Christian than to
see a contempt and indignity put upon the Body and Blood
of His ever-blessed Redeemer ; and he at the same time
gives a very strong and clear hint, that the Bread is that
Body, the Wine is that Blood, though not in substance,
yet in life and spirit. Since therefore the Eucharist is so
venerable and Divine a thing, it must be allowed to be fit
and reasonable, that it should be fenced and guarded from
the touch and approach of scandalous and notorious sinners :
and this could not be done but by lodging a power in the
Pastors of the Church to keep all gross offenders at a due
distance from it; and it was to this end and purpose, that
excommunication was made the punishment of all unworthy
receivers. Therefore Justin Martyr assures us, that in his
timey "it was unlawful for any one to partake of it, that did
not believe the Christian doctrine, that had not been bap
tized, and did not live as Christ had instructed him." St.
Cyprian aggravates the crime of some Christians, who had
done sacrifice to idols, and yet presumed to go to the Lord's
Table, hoping to escape censure ; by saying2, " They go from
the altars of devils to the Holy of the Lord with polluted
hands; they invade the Body of our Lord, and so sin
more against Him both with mouth and hands than when
they denied Him." And, to mention no more at present,
Chrysostoma declares, " he would rather shed his own blood
than profusely to lavish the tremendous Blood of Christ, by
giving it even to a general or emperor, contrary to right and
reason."

r a. p. 2. Ap. * e. p. 1 1 . Ap. a w. p. 40. Ap.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 247

And it is to be observed that the whole process of excom- CHAP.
munication and reconciliation turned upon this principle, The re ard
that the Eucharist was too sacred and valuable a mystery paid of old
to be administered to notorious wilful sinners; and yet so diarist best
necessary, that he, who rightly understood it, would submit excommu-
to any hardship in order to obtain it. The offender was cast nication.
out from among the communicants, when they were met
together to celebrate this holy ordinance, to shew that such
a pearl was not to be thrown to swine. St. Paul bids the
Corinthians " purge out the old leaven," that is, cast out i Cor. v. 7,
the incestuous person ; " because even Christ our Passover is
sacrificed for us ; therefore," says he, " let us keep the feast,
not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice
and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth." The feast, of which the Apostle speaks, is
clearly that of the Eucharist, the memorial of Christ our
Passover sacrificed for us ; it was from this feast, therefore,
that the unclean Corinthian was expelled. And this was the
grand privilege, from which loose Christians were excluded
in the following ages. They were indeed deprived of all
conversation with communicants as well as of the Sacra
ment itself; for it was just, that there should be a visible
distinction betwixt those that were thought worthy of this
heavenly feast and those that were not. And yet, for some
time after they were re-admitted to the company of the
communicants, and even to join with them in the most
solemn prayers, and to be present at the administration of
the Eucharist, they were not permitted to receive it them
selves : so that, in a word, the loss of the Eucharist for a time
was the main penalty that the Church inflicted on the most
scandalous sinners; and the restoring of themselves to the Eu
charist was the end which they had in view, and for the sake
of which they submitted to such long and severe penances.

3. The ends and reasonableness of excommunication will
easily appear in relation to the person on whom it was in
flicted. St. Paul tells us what these were, when he ordered
the incestuous person to be delivered to Satan, " for the i Cor. v. 5.
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in
the day of the Lord." Here are two ends mentioned in
respect to the offender.

248 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

(1.) The first immediate end was "the destruction of the
flesh." It is evident, that by ' flesh' the Apostle means the

intended to corruptions of nature : for these only we are industriously to
the Offender , J *

by excom- destroy in ourselves and in other men. The prevailing cor-

n* ruptions in this Corinthian were, his abominable lust in using
his father's wife as if she had been his own, and his pride
and insolence. For it is evident, that the incestuous person,
being wealthy, had raised a party in the Church of Corinth ;
and by the strength thereof hoped to protect himself from
the censure of the Apostle. It is plain from St. Paul's words,
i8Ci9iv' ^at S0me °^ ^e Christians at Corinth were " puffed up"
or l swollen' with a spirit of faction; and it is as evident
what this party aimed at, namely, that this incestuous wretch
should be continued in communion in spite of the Apostle

1 Cor. v. and his authority ; which he expresses in these words, " Ye

are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that
hath done this deed might be taken away from among you."
And he further tells them on this occasion, " their glorying
is not good." It is plain, that the Apostle was under some
apprehensions, lest the offender and his party should make a
head against discipline, and that many of them would not
abstain from the company of the incestuous person, when he
was delivered to Satan ; and this is fairly intimated to us in

2 Cor. vii. those words, " When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh

had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Neverthe
less God comforted us by the coming of Titus ; when he told
us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind
towards me ; so that I rejoiced the more." In which words
the Apostle lets us know his fear and concern, lest the
sentence, which he had ordered to be passed, should rather
provoke than reclaim the incestuous person and his party ;
and his great pleasure and satisfaction to hear, that the
discipline exercised against this offender had produced its
desired effects. If the Apostle had sat tamely down under
those discouragements, and concluded that, by undertaking
to excommunicate this offender, he should only expose his
own authority, he had by this means cherished and inflamed
the lust and pride of this great man; therefore he takes
heart, and uses the rod of his authority ; he commands him
to be delivered to Satan " for the destruction of the flesh,"

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 249

that is, to be turned out of the Church-doors, and so aban- CHAP.
doned to his proper master, who had kindled the fire of lust -
and pride in his heart : for he well knew, that, if any thing
could mortify and humble him, it must be the use of that
discipline which our Saviour in such cases had directed to be
exercised ; that, if the consideration of his being discarded by
the Apostle and the Church, and declared in so solemn a
manner to be a son and slave of Satan and unworthy of the
communion of Christian people, would not cool his lust and
vain-glory, he might justly be esteemed to be desperately bad
and incurably wicked. This was the last means that Christ
had prescribed to be used for the reclaiming hardened sinners;
and it is evident that it had its effect on this impure Corin
thian : for we are assured that he who had so numerous and
formidable a party combined together, as it should seem,
on purpose to screen him from the severe sentence, which
the Apostle had decreed against him ; yet, when he saw the
Apostle firm in his resolution, and the Church of Corinth
dutifully complying with St. Paul and forsaking his company,
he was melted down to such a degree of humility and so deep
a sense of his sin, that St. Paul saw occasion, in the next
Epistle that he wrote, to desire his Christian brethren to
" comfort him, lest he should be swallowed up of grief." 2 Cor. ii. 7.
Thus were the lust and pride of this offender reduced, and
the corruptions of his flesh destroyed, by this wholesome dis
cipline. And I must here add, that when men by excom
munication had attained to a true insight of their own misery,
and submitted to such penance as the judge thought proper or
necessary, those fastings and outward humiliations were very
effectual means to abate the swellings of pride and lust, to
destroy or mortify the flesh : and an excellent writer b has
shewed, that the ancients did take this to be the meaning
of the Apostle in this place.

(2.) The other and final end of this discipline was, that " the Especially
spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord :" and this clearly SelroSd0
follows from the former, for the destruction of the flesh is to come>
the salvation of the soul j the consequence from this is very
plain, that excommunication was never intended for the de-

b [i. e. Dr. Nathaniel Marshall.] Primitive Chinch. Printed 1714. [p.
See The Penitential Discipline of the 48. Ed. Oxford, 1844.]

250

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP.
IV.

struction of the soul nor of the body, but only of the vicious
corrupt lusts and inclinations, which are the greatest obstruc
tion to our future happiness. Excommunication is by the vul
gar called a f curse ;' and the Forms of Excommunication, used
in later ages, gave much occasion for this false notion6. Christ
was so far from intending it as a curse, that He designed it
to be only a correction, whereby to reduce offending Christians
to their duty, and by this means to save their souls. It was in
deed a curse, if men continued obstinate under it ; but then
they made it so to themselves. It was indeed meant for the
destruction of the flesh, that is, of all evil habits and desires ;
and when St. Paul wishes " anathema to them that love not
our Lord Jesus Christ d," it is very rational to believe, that He
means no more than what He here expresses by "the de
struction of the flesh ;" and when primitive Bishops in Coun
cil pronounced anathema against heretics, they may very
fairly be taken in the same sense.

c It is sufficient to give one instance
of those damnatory Forms from the
Textus Roffensis, apud Spelman. in
Glossario, voce Excommunicatio. Ex
auctoritate Dei Omnipotentis, Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, et sancto
rum Canonum, Sanctaeque et inteme-
ratae Virginis Dei Genitricis Mariae,
atque omnium coelestium Virtutum,
Angelorum — Patriarcharum, — atque
omnium simul Sanctorum et Electo-
rum Dei, Excommunicamus et ana-
thematizamus hunc — N. et a liminibus
Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae sequestramus, ut
aeternis suppliciis cruciandus mancipe-
tur cum Dathan et Abiron — et sicut
aqua ignis extinguitur, sic extinguatur
lucerna ejus in secula seculorum, nisi
resipuerit et ad sanctificationem vene-
rit, Amen. Maledicat ilium Deus
Pater — Filius — Spiritus Sanctus. Ma
ledicat ilium Sancta Crux — Maledicat
ilium Sancta Dei Genitrix — omnes
Angeli — Maledicat ilium Patriarcha
rum et Prophetarum laudabilis nume-
rus, — Joannes praecursor et Baptista
Christi — Sanctus Petrus et Sanctus
Paulus, Andreas — omnes Sancti. —
Maledicant ilium coeli et terra — Male-
dictus sit ubicunque fuerit, sive in
domo, sive in agro, sive in via, sive in
semita, sive in silva, sive in aqua, sive
in ecclesia. Maledictus sit vivendo,
moriendo, manducando, bibendo, esuri-
endo, sitiendo, jejunando, dormitando,
dormiendo, vigilando, ambulando, stan-

do, sedenc'o, jacendo, operando, quies-
cendo, mingendo, cacando, fleboto-
mando. Maledictus sit in totis viribus
corporis, — intus et exterius, — in capil-
lis, in cerebro, in vertice, in temporibus,
in fronte, in auriculis, in superciliis, in
oculis, in genis, in maxillis, in naribus,
in dentibus mordacibus, in labris, sive
molibus, in labiis, in gutture, in hume-
ris, in harmis, in brachiis, in manibus,
in digitis, in pectore, in corde, et omni
bus interioribus stomacho tenus, in
renibus, in inguinibus, in femore, in
genitalibus, in coxis, in genibus, in
cruribus, in pedibus, in articulis, et in
unguibus — in totis compagibus mem-
brorum, a vertice capitis usque ad
plantam pedis, non sit in eo sanitas.
Maledicat ilium Christus Filius Dei
vivi toto Suae majestatis imperio, et
insurgat adversus eum Ccelum cum
omnibus Virtutibus, quae in eo moven-
tur, ad damnandum eum, nisi pceni-
tuerit et ad satisfactionem venerit,
Amen, Fiat, Fiat, Amen. [Spelman
adds, "Hae excommunicationum for
mulae sequuntur emendationes legum,
quas Gulielmus Conquestor edidit, in
lib. vocato Textus Roffensis, MS. et
videntur sub eo ipso aevo conditae ;
quia in superioribus nusquam, quod
scio, reperitur beatae Virginis Mariae
invocatio." Ed. Lond. 1664.]

(i Heb. D^lil the same with ' destruc
tion,' or ' anathema,' 1 Cor. xvi. 22.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 251

By denying to excommunicated persons the Sacrament, CHAP,
which is the Bread of Life, and the Cup of the New Covenant, — ha^.gt
the primitive Church might seem at first to deny them one no benefit
principal means of salvation : but it is to be remembered,
that though the Eucharist be an earnest of eternal life to
honest and regular Christians, yet that " they, who eat and
drink it unworthily, eat and drink damnation to themselves."
It was therefore an act of mercy as well as justice to with
hold the Sacrament from them, who by their notorious
wicked works were enemies to the Cross of Christ ; it was
a just punishment to deprive them of a privilege, which they
had so greatly abused ; it was a mercy to refuse them that,
which if they continued to receive, they would thereby
increase their guilt, and render themselves three times more
the children of the devil than they were before. The Eucha
rist is a benefit to them only, who keep themselves free from
the great offence, from gross wilful sin; to them who are
guilty of scandalous damnable sins it is certainly poison, and
hastens and seals their destruction; therefore the Priest, who
drives the profane communicant from the Altar, performs the
part of a faithful physician in forbidding that to his patient,
which he believes would prove certain death to him.

Even the long and tedious penances, which were of old The long
enjoined to excommunicated persons, were only proofs of the
faithful tenderness of the primitive Pastors toward the souls ficial-
of their people. Divines of late years have laboured to prove
that repentance imports nothing but an act of the mind ; and
it is true, that that repentance, which fits grown men for
Baptism, does imply no more than a mere change of our
resolution; though this too must be openly professed before
the Church, and this is that repentance, which our Saviour
and His Apostles and St. John Baptist spake of in the
Gospel. But that repentance, which is required of Christians,
who have fallen from grace and run into habits of vice or
acts of very grievous sin, is of another sort ; and was believed
by the guides and Fathers of the Apostolic age to import
outward austerities, frequent fastings, and a long course of
humiliation in public as well as private, as they sufficiently
shewed by their constant practice. And it is to no purpose
to argue, that the word in the original Greek carries no such

252

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

Rev. i. 10

Jude xii.

CHAP, signification; for it is certain there is not any great body of
— men in the world, but that they take some particular word
in a sense quite different from what it commonly bears. And
since the most primitive Church took the word to denote
what we commonly call f penance/ therefore we have rea
son to believe, that, when St. Paul speaks of some at Corinth
2 Cor. xii. " that had not repented of the uncleanness which they had
committed' his meaning was, that they had not openly and
solemnly humbled themselves in the face of the congregation
for their crimes. For Tradition is the only certain method
we have of understanding such words, as are not expressly
unfolded in the Scripture, as 'Lord's- day/ ' love-feast/ or
' feast of charity/ ' enlightening e/ and several others ; and
if we will not in this case be content to accept of such light as
Tradition affords, we must for ever wander in the dark. And
I fear they are guilty of the greatest cruelty to the souls
of men, who endeavour to represent this outward part of
repentance needless and superfluous. It is clear to every
observing eye, that Christians of this age, that are well-
meaning and in some measure religiously-disposed, are per
petually running round in a circle of sinning and ' repenting/
as they call it. They often run into great excesses, and sin
grievously against God and man ; they confess their sins to
God, and for some hours or days perhaps they are serious
and retired, and then come to the Sacrament, and think
all is well, till they run into the same or other vices ; and
then they repeat their confessions and short humiliations, and
so are perpetually wheeling about, without ever coming one
point nearer to the centre, that is, a constant steady obedi
ence. Nay, many conclude all this to be more than is
necessary, they reserve their repentance for the last work of
their lives. For they have been taught to believe that it
consists only in a change of the mind ; and they are willing to
suppose, that it is therefore a thing to be dispatched in a few
moments and by virtue of one single effort of their will : and
if they happen to recover from that sickness, which brought
them into a necessity of resolving to amend their lives, they
soon find that they are the same men they were before, and
that they continue to wallow in the same mire ; and by this

e Heb. vi. 4, where to be " enlightened " signifies to be ' baptized.'

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 253

means it comes to pass, that we very seldom in this age see CHAP,
an example of sincere repentance. There are, God be thanked, -
good numbers of men that do tolerably well preserve their
innocence; but they who are once engaged in habits of sin
do very seldom, if at all, get free from that thraldom. And
the true reason of it I take to be this, that Christians have
lost the true notion of perfect repentance for sins after
Baptism, which the primitive Church did justly believe to
consist in a long course of fasting, praying, confessing openly
in the Church, deploring and bewailing former sins and trans
gressions, in avoiding that company and other temptations
which were the occasions of those sins, and in the frequent
practice of the contrary virtues and duties, until the Penitent
was grown as ready and expert in every good word and work,
as he had formerly been in his vices and follies. This was
the " repentance to salvation, never to be repented of," which
the Apostles and primitive Fathers required of those Christians
who had sinned with a high hand. We are sure this was the
notion of repentance, which prevailed among the best and
earliest Christians, from those words of the angel to Hermas f
in the book called Pastor; which is allowed by the most
learned men to have been written before the Apostles were
all dead : " ( Do you think/ says the angel, ' that the sins of
those who repent are forthwith blotted out ? No ; but he that
is a penitent ought to afflict his own soul, and to humble
himself in every respect, and full oft to undergo many and
various hardships ; and when he has endured all things that
are enjoined him, then perchance He that made him and all
things may be moved by His own compassion toward him/"
It was indeed difficult to perform ; but, when accomplished,
the Penitent himself had reason to acknowledge the wisdom
and goodness of the Bishop, who had laid this injunction
upon him ; for such severity is the truest mercy. And if we
consider what hath succeeded instead of this true primitive
repentance in the Church of Rome, we shall see nothing but

f Numquid ergo, ait [Angelas], perferre ; quumque perpessus fuerit

protinus putas aboleri delicta eorum, omnia, quae illi instituta fuerint, tune

qui agunt pcenitentiam ? Non proinde forsitau, Qui eum creavit et Qui for-

continuo ; sed oportet eum, qui agit mavit universa, commovebitur erga

pcenitentiam, affligere animam suam, eum dementia Sua. [Lib. iii. Similit.

et humilem aninio se praestare in omni vii.]
negotio, et vexationes multas variasque

254

OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

some sorry remains of it, mixed with modern superstitions;
in others, nothing but inward sorrow and compunction, of
which the man's own conscience is the only judge under God.
Excommu- (4.) The end and reasonableness of excommunication is
very apparent in regard to other Christians. For certainly
^ was enough to damp the lusts and passions of moderate
tioooTvice sinners> to see wnat sname they must take to themselves,
what sharp penances they must undergo, in order to recon
cile themselves to God and the Church, if they were guilty
of such crimes as deserved excommunication ; and therefore
by sometimes passing this sentence on notorious offenders,
others were taught to hear and fear and not to act presump
tuously. And it is certain, that it was chiefly by the prudent
use of this discipline the primitive Church became the best
school of virtue, and raised men to higher degrees of holiness
and purity than any society of men that ever yet appeared
in the world. And the great decay of Christian piety in
later ages must be imputed chiefly to the neglect or abuse
of it. And this brings me to the last and melancholic head
of discourse, viz.

Great pm- V. The corruptions, under which excommunication has
cessaryfor fallen. The primitive discipline, as above described, could
nis^ration" not in the eye of reason be very lasting, without a constant
miracle or somewhat very like it. The persons, who had the
administration of it, when it was in its perfection, I mean,
the Bishops of the Apostolic age, must have been in a great
measure free from the common infirmities of human nature.
Our Saviour calls seven of them, "the angels of His seven
Churches in Asia ;" and it seems plain, that they and their
brethren must have been somewhat more than common men ;
otherwise they could never have managed so great a trust to
the honour of their Master and themselves. There were two
things necessary to this end ; the first was, never to pass this
sentence on any but such as did highly deserve it, either by
their own confession, or according to the vogue of the main
body of the people among whom they lived, and who were
concerned to avoid their company when they were excom
municated; the other was, to pass this sentence with an
equal hand, without any respect of persons or consideration
of any quality in him that was arraigned, without regard to

or EXCOMMUNICATION. 255

any other point but only this, whether he be guilty or not CHAP.
guilty. It was scarce to be expected, that so many thousand -
Bishops as were necessary for the government of the Chris
tian Church should for many ages keep strictly to these rules ;
and alas ! it is but too evident they did not.

1. The first corruption of excommunication was the making Excommu-
the Ecclesiastical Court distinct from the assembly for wor- corrupted
ship. While the whole affairs were transacted in the face of ^c^asti_
the Church, and the people were satisfied of the equity of cal Courts.
the proceedings by being present at them, there was no room

for any partiality or indirect practices ; but when the Bishop
held his assembly for worship at one time or place and his
court for discipline at another, this gave opportunity for
all manner of corruption. This therefore I reckon the first
abuse, if not in time, of which I am not very sure, yet in
the importance of it.

2. A second corruption was, that penances were carried to By extra-
a most excessive height, so that it was not credible that the nances. PG
generality of offenders, especially they of estates and quality,
should ever submit to them. The Penitent was forbid to
commence a suit in the Temporal Court g, or to follow any

trade or worldly business ; nay, he must be shornh and go
into a monastery, or else never expect absolution.

3. The grossest abuse of all was, commutation of penance, Bycommu-
or giving money or land for pious uses, thereby to purchase
redemption from the severities mentioned under the last

head; there are some instances of this in the sixth century1.

4. To this end Absolution was given, before penance was By absoiv-
enjoined. To pay for absolution had been simony; but to
redeem penance with a sum of money was not. Therefore

the Penitent, on his first appearance, commonly gave security,
that he would submit to the judge; upon this he was forth
with received to communion, and afterwards did penance or
paid for not doing it.

e Decrett. Pap. Leonis, 22, 23, 24, [Concil. Mag. Brit] vol. i. p. 62. [Ed.

apud Justellum. Lond. 1639. The instance given is

h Concil. Agathense, c. 15. Binius, this; "Rex Mouricus, accepto jugo

torn. iii. p. 714. Concil. Barcinon., pcenitentiae, dedit quatuor villas pro

c. 6. torn. iv. p. 192. Concil. Tolet. iii. redemptione animae suae et pro anima

c. 12. ibid., p. 504. Concil. Aurel. ibid., Cynetu, Ecclesiae Landaviae, et in

P- 190. manu Oudocei Episcopi et omnibus

1 Concilia Landav. in Spelman. suis successoribus, &c."]

256 OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAP. 5. By this means a Penitent might be in actual com-
— munion, and receive the Sacrament, while he was doing his

By com
municating penance or compounding for it ; all which was a direct con-
men under , , . . . A , ...

penance, tradiction to the primitive method.

By repeti- 6. Excommunication, penance, and reconciliation, were

nance and" repeated as oft as the offender gave occasion ; whereas but

nicatSn1U" one rePentance was allowed in the primitive Church. The

Church of Spaink opposed this in the sixth century, but to

no purpose.

By Bishops 7. Bishops did in effect wholly leave the administration
business to* of excommunication and discipline to their Archdeacons or
officials, who were to raise their fortunes by it. Advocates
and Proctors made the Ecclesiastical Courts so like the
Temporal, that they were distinguished only in name ; and
it is evident, they laboured hard to draw to themselves the
cognizance of temporal causes ; and the officials themselves,
at last, were laymen.

By turning 8. Yet to make their excommunications more terrible,
nication they stuffed them full of curses contrary to the primitive
into a curse. manner^ of which I have before given an account. Apo
stolical excommunication was designed for the destruction
of the flesh, this for the damnation of the soul. Ancient
penance was intended for the real amendment of the man
and for his souPs health ; very little regard was had to this
in the new scheme of discipline.

Upon the whole, I am persuaded that the Church of Rome
has not perverted any one institution of Jesus Christ more
than this of excommunication ; and, in doing this, hath in
effect taken away the most powerful remedy against vice
that God ever prescribed to men. For who can wonder, if
the authority given by Christ to His Church, being so grossly
abused, is now sunk into contempt?

I shall close this chapter by observing, that our doctrine
is defective as well as our discipline, and that until the former
be rectified the latter cannot be restored. It is plain that
the foundation of all the primitive discipline was a firm belief,
that the Eucharist was the most valuable blessing, the most
saving and necessary Ordinance ; and that to be deprived of it
by a just sentence was the greatest punishment, to which a

k Concil, Tolet. iii. c. 11. Bin., torn. iv. p. 50J.

OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 257

Christian was liable in this world; and that in order to re- CHAP.
cover the benefit of it, the harshest penances and humilia —
tions which the Church enjoined were patiently to be under
gone. But now in this age, while we complain of the loss of
discipline, we do not seem to employ our care sufficiently
toward the re-establishing the foundation of it, that is, the
doctrine of the necessity of frequently and constantly receiv
ing the Sacrament; by which means it comes to pass, that
excommunication, which was formerly thought the greatest
hardship, is now chosen by most Christians as the most safe
and easy state. And I cannot see how it is possible to awake
men to a sense of this truth, that by neglecting the Sacra
ment they neglect their own salvation, but by endeavouring
to convince them that our Saviour in John vi. discourses of
the Eucharist, and that we can nowhere eat the Flesh of
the Son of Man but at the Lord's Table. It is evident, that
the primitive Church grounded their doctrine of the necessity
of the Sacrament on this place of Scripture ; and until we
believe as the ancients did, our practice and discipline can
never be like theirs.

JOHNSON.

CHAP. V.

OF PREPARATION FOR THE COMMUNION.

THE fuel, with which the ancient sacrifices were consumed,
Neh. x. 34; is in Scripture called a " wood-offering ;" and for the same
reason the pious affections of the mind, that are required to
make us good communicants, may justly be called an offering
and sacrifice to God ; and, indeed, " a broken heart and con
trite spirit" was by David called a "sacrifice of God," and it
certainly remains so under the Gospel. The ancients do often
speak of devotion, self-resignation, love, purity, and other
virtues, as necessary ingredients of the Christian Sacrifice;
as things which make our external oblations come up with
greater acceptance in the presence of God. The Jews of old
hoped, as well as other people, by their sweet-scented canea
and wood to render their sacrifice a more agreeable service.
And we shall be wanting to our Sacrifice and ourselves, if we
do not endeavour to present it with such inward qualities of
mind as we know to be well-pleasing to our God and Saviour.

There are six things necessary to render us worthy com
municants :

I. Baptism ;

II. The keeping our Baptism undefiled, or cleansing our
selves by repentance ;

III. The resolving, with God's grace, to keep ourselves pure
and undefiled for the future ;

IV. A competent knowledge of the nature of the Eucharist ;

V. The receiving it with inward and outward reverence ;

VI. Self-examination.

Baptism I. None ought to presume to come to the Lord's Table,
?n OTSSto unt^ ne nave ^een nrst baptized : for no man is a member of

rist " a Isa. xliii. 23 ; Jer. vi. 20 ; Rev. its sweet scent to give a perfume to the

xviii. 12. "Thyine wood," mentioned sacrifice,
in the last text, is wood qualified by

OF PREPARATION FOR THE COMMUNION. 259

the Church of Christ, that has not been washed with water CHAP.
in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and the -
Eucharist is an ordinance, to which none can have a right
but they who belong to this Body. Under the Jewish Law, Exod. xii.
no man was permitted to eat the Passover, until he had first
been circumcised ; and as the Passover was the type of the
Eucharist, so was Circumcision of Baptism. Therefore our
Saviour first bids the Apostles to " disciple all nations, bap- Matt.
tizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;" 20.VU1
and then afterwards, to "teach them to do all things what
soever He had commanded them •" and of those things, which
Christ commanded, the Eucharist is a great and principal one.
It is therefore evident, that our Saviour intended men to be
baptized, before they receive the other Sacrament ; and St.
Paul seems to teach us this doctrine, when he calls upon us
to " draw near to God, having our bodies washed with clean Heb. x. 22.
water." In the Communion we make our nearest approaches
to God ; and therefore we must not dare to do this, until we
have first been washed and cleansed by Baptism.

II. To render us worthy communicants, it is necessary,

1. Either that we should have preserved our 'Baptism
undefiled ;

2. Or that we should by repentance cleanse ourselves from
such defilements as we have contracted.

1. The most perfect preparation for the Communion is, to Baptism
have kept our Baptism pure and undefiled ; that is, not to have
been guilty of any gross error in faith or practice, since we
were washed from our sins in Baptism. For the garment5 t?16
preserved clean and pure, of which there is frequent mention
in the New Testament and in ancient writers, was a figurative
expression, by which they meant Baptism kept clear from the
stains and pollutions of all grievous and presumptuous sin ;
such as are in this condition are said to have kept Christ's
commandments0, and therefore to have a right to the Tree of

b Rev. Hi. 4; xvi. 15; Jude 23. the ancient Translators, instead of Tloi-

Ignat. ad Polycarp., c. 6. Constt., lib. ow/res TO.S eVroAas avrov, read irXvvov-

viii. c. 6. Vide Clem. Recognitt., lib. res ras crr6\as avrwv. See Mill in

iv. c. 35. [ — gratia Baptismi ; quam loc. the sense of botli readings is the

qui fuerit consecutus, tamquam vesti- same; for they only who have "done

mentum munduin, cum quo ei ingre- the commandments," can be said to

diendum est ad coenam Regis.] " have washed their robes," or to

c Rev. xxii. 14. It is observable, "have kept them white and clean,"
that several good MSS. and some of

s2

260

OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP. Life. For as " rivers of pure water " clearly signifies Baptism ;
' 7— so the Tree of Life on each side of this river seems to represent

XXll.

Rev.

i, 2. the Eucharist, which our Saviour calls the Bread of Life. Such

Christians as these are thus described by an ancient writer,

2 Esdras ii. "They are clothed in white, they have kept the commandment
of the Lord ;" and such as these are said to be "sealed in the
feast of the Lord," that is, in the Holy Communion ; the feast,
which is to be kept " with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth." Now our Baptism may be preserved pure in two
respects ;

As to faith, (] .) As to faith : for it is the commandment of God, that
we should believe on the Name of His Son Jesus Christ ; and
it ought to be the spiritual care of Christians, that they be
sound in the Faith. " This is the work of God," says Christ,
"that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent." And He
says this with a particular regard to the Holy Eucharist ; for
this was the Bread, of which He was speaking just before,
and "which endures," as to its effects, "unto everlasting
life;" and "which the Son of Man," the Saviour of the
world, " gives unto us." This is the Bread, for which Christ
exhorts the people to labour; and when the people desired
to know what that work or labour was, whereby they might
gain this Bread, He plainly enough informs them that it
chiefly consisted in sincerely believing Him to be the Mes-
sias, And this was indeed the greatest hardship, which these
carnal Jews had to overcome. If they had been once fully con
vinced that He was indeed the Son of God, they would more
easily have been prevailed upon to comply with Him in other
particulars. The greatest labour of the men of that age was
to shake off the prejudices which they conceived against
Christ and His Gospel ; and this was indeed a labour. But
we, God be praised, have been bred up in the knowledge of
the Christian Religion, and therefore faith is not so hard a
work to us as it was to them ; and therefore we are the more
inexcusable, if in any point we depart from that Faith which
was once delivered to the saints; and he, who does so, defiles
his Baptism, and is therefore, while he remains in that state,
unfit for the Holy Sacrament. All Churches have the best
of Creeds, I mean that which we call the Nicene, inserted
into their Communion- Service; and he who cannot join in

THE COMMUNION. 261

rehearsing this Creed, or saying a hearty Amen to it, he has CHAP.
denied his garment, and is not therefore fit to appear at the -
Lord's Table.

(2.) But though our faith be very sincere and steady, yet Andprac-
we cannot be said to have kept our Baptism undefiled, if we
have been guilty of any great offence, any presumptuous sin,
by wilfully breaking any known commandment of God. As
Christ's Church or people is " cleansed by the washing ofEph.v. 26,
water by the Word," so it must continue " a glorious Church,
not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and
without blemish/' and as such be " presented to Him" at the
last day ; for it is certainly required of Christians, that they
should " serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days
of their life/' and they who do this, they alone are the most
perfectly prepared for constantly receiving the Sacrament.

But then it is not any lesser sin that defiles our Baptism Sins of ne-
as [sic] makes us unfit to draw near to God. There are sins Sity do

of ignorance, which Christians commit for want of know-
ledge ; and if the ignorance be such as we cannot help, then
God will, through Christ Jesus, have compassion on us and
forgive us, and continue us in His favour, if we do daily con
fess our sins, and in general beg His pardon for our secret
unknown faults. The best of Christians do often in thought,
word, or deed, transgress the strict rules of duty through the
heat and hastiness of their nature, while perhaps they them
selves do not perceive it, or do afterwards perfectly forget it.
And whatever sins Christians do commit through such igno
rance and surprise do not put them out of a state of salva
tion. These are sins of infirmity which cannot be avoided,
and if the greatest saint on earth say that he hath no such
sin he deceiveth himself; and if no man could keep his Bap
tism undefiled or be fit for the Communion, who lives in
such sin, then it is certain that all have defiled their Bap
tism, and no man in the world could safely receive the Sacra
ment; for "in many things" of this sort "we offend all."

Nay, there are sins, which do not proceed wholly from
ignorance, surprise, or infirmity, but are committed with a known sins,
lesser degree of wilfulness and knowledge ; which yet do not
defile us to such a degree as to make us unworthy commu
nicants. It is certain, that several of the Apostles were guilty

262 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, of such a sin, just before our Saviour administered the Sa-
- crament to them, I mean, of causeless anger ; " they had

Matt. xxvi. . . . . ' | «

8. indignation against the pious woman, who poured a box or

precious ointment on our Lord's head; yet He presently
after gave them the Sacrament. They could not but see
that what the woman did was well meant, and they were
sensible that their Master was now going to die and had well
deserved this honour to be done to Him ; yet there was a
mixture of infirmity in it ; they were in a poor condition, and
thought that the price of that ointment would have been
better applied, if given in charity and alms-deeds. If our
Saviour had judged such a sin as this to be a defilement of
their Baptism, He would not forthwith have bid them eat
that Bread and drink that Cup. The same may be said of a
Christian, who hath been unawares overtaken with intem
perance, or hath for want of thought or caution said some
what which he knew to be false ; I mean, if he be in the main
a sober honest man. For it would have been a rash judg
ment in any one to say, that if such a man should, in a few
days after having committed such a fault, receive the Holy
Sacrament, that he hath eat and drank his own damnation.
It is true that every man ought to confess and humble himself
under the hand of God for such lesser sins ; and so he must,
if a sin committed through ignorance or surprise or any
other infirmity do afterwards come to his knowledge ; but
then, upon such confession and humiliation, the Christian
still continues in a state of Baptismal purity, and is not to
shut himself out from the Lord's Table.

Nor lesser If, indeed, by any untruth which we have unadvisedly

which did spoken, or any sudden fit of anger we have been so far

fromPma-ed transported as that we have done any real wrong to our

lice. neighbour either in word or deed, we must not only confess

it to God and beg His pardon, but we must by all means

make satisfaction to the man whom we have wronged, and

use all proper means to be reconciled to him : but if the

injury we did him did not proceed from rooted malice and

ill-will, this is no defilement of our Baptism ; nor does it

render us unfit for the Sacrament, after we have once made

our peace with the party whom we had wronged, or done

what was reasonable on our parts in order to that end. This

THE COMMUNION. 263

we may learn from the directions which our Saviour gives us CHAP.
in this case ; " If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there Matt v 2s
rememberest that thy brother hath aught" of just complaint
"against thee; leave there thy gift before the Altar, and go thy
way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come, and
offer thy gift." Though the injury we have done were so far
from being designed, that we neither intended to do it, when
we actually did it, nor did ever since call it to our mind, until
we are just offering our alms at the Altar in order to receive
the Sacrament ; yet, if even then, upon a re-examination of
our own hearts, we believe we have done hurt to another, we
must not proceed to perform this holy duty, until we have done
our part toward a reconcilement. But such offences as these
should not make us absent ourselves from the Lord's Table
longer than is necessary for us in order to make satisfaction
to our wronged neighbour. If we can that minute find him
out and make friends with him, we may that same minute
offer our gift and proceed to partake of the Holy Eucharist.

But there are four sorts of crimes, by which men do de
file their Baptism, and render themselves unworthy of the
Sacrament.

The first is apostasy, or a falling off from the Christian Apostates
Religion to idolatry, Judaism, or infidelity. Men in this condi- Baptism! r
tion are said to have " denied the Faith," to have committed ™w™St
" the sin unto death," to " sin wilfully after they have re- themselves
ceived the knowledge of the truth." This sin does not consist charist.
in denying Christ, as Peter did, with the mouth only, not
with the heart, for fear of present punishment; but in a
wilful departure from the Church to heathenish or Jewish
superstition, a turning from the Holy Commandment to
wallow in the mire of unbelief: and the Apostle tells us
that such as these " cannot be renewed to repentance, there
remains no more Sacrifice for such sin : it had been better
for such men, if they had never known the way of Truth."
Such as these were, in the primitive times, once for all cut
off from the Church ; and though they pretended to repent,
yet they were never again received to Communion. They
were guilty of this sin in a lesser degree, who brought in
"damnable heresies," or left the Church to follow heretical or
schismatical leaders : for as heresy and schism shuts men out

264 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, of the kingdom of heaven, so it likewise cuts them off from
- God's Church ; but then these latter upon their repentance
were always received to Communion.

fuoeus?cPts 3> They were looked uPon> in tne primitive Apostolical
of sin defile ages, to have denied their Baptism and to be unworthy of
tism,and tne Communion, who were guilty of blasphemy, perjury,
unafHfOTthe ^olatry, murder, robbery, adultery, incest, fornication, bear-
Eucharist; ing false witness, and the like. He, for instance, who had
been guilty of one act of idolatry in sacrificing to false gods,
was judged thereby to have defiled his Baptism, and there
fore was forbid the use of the Sacrament for a long time
together, according to the degree of his crime : so the inces
tuous person was cast out from among the Christians at
Corinth, as unfit to join in keeping the feast. The sins
above-mentioned are of so deep a dye, so full of guilt and
horror, that it is not to be believed that any man can commit
them, who has not hardened himself by looseness of principle
or by training himself up in lesser sins. They, who offended
in such great points as these, were always esteemed to sin
with a high hand, and therefore to be utterly unfit for the
Communion.

And so do 3. And so were they, who allowed themselves in any habit
sin. of known wilful sin; though drunkenness, lying, or lesser

acts of injustice, very rarely committed by some sudden acci
dent, do not presently stain our Baptism to that degree, as
to deprive us of the benefit of the Sacrament ; yet these or
any other sins, however small they are or may seem to be in
themselves, if they grow into a settled habit or custom, do
render us unworthy guests at the Lord's Table ; and that sin
is grown into a custom, which a man commits as often as he
has an opportunity or temptation to it. No man is a drunkard
or liar, because he has, now and then, at the distance of
several years or many months, committed some few acts con
trary to strict sobriety and integrity ; but he only who is
often, if not for the most part, guilty of transgressing his duty
in these particulars, when he may do it without running any
hazard to his worldly interests. He that embraces any sin
so often as he can conveniently, he shews himself to be under
the dominion of that sin, and therefore cannot be a servant
to God. All habitual sins must be exceeding offensive in the

THE COMMUNION. 265

sight of God, not only because they are frequently repeated, CHAP,
but because the sinner shews that he offends with the full -

consent and approbation of his own will. An honest Chris
tian may sometimes be betrayed into a foolish or even a
wicked action through want of courage or through the great
strength of some temptation ; but he, who weekly, daily, or
hourly, breaks a law of God, must certainly allow himself in
that sin ; for a very indifferent degree of care and watchful
ness would be sufficient to restrain him from running per
petually into the same error and excess. He therefore, who
goes on constantly in the same road of vice, gives a full proof
that he is under no check of conscience but has sold himself
to do evil ; and for this reason ought to look on himself as one
that has perfectly broken the yoke and burst the bond of
God's laws, as one that has polluted his Baptismal garment
and is therefore altogether unfit to appear at the Lord's
Table. And though he be not arrived at a perfect habit, so
as upon every opportunity to swallow the bait, yet if he does
it commonly or frequentty, and especially if he does it with
ease and greediness, without any remorse or reluctance, his
state is very dangerous; he is come to a habit, though not to
a perfect habit, and therefore ought in justice to his own soul
to keep at a distance from that Heavenly Bread, which be
longs not to those who wallow in the mire of vice.

All that were guilty of such presumptuous acts of sin, as
were mentioned under the last head but one, and all that
were come to a habit of lesser sins were obliged by the dis-
cipline of the primitive Church to abstain from the holy
Sacrament, unless they could hide and conceal their vices
from the eyes of their Pastors and fellow-Christians. And
though this discipline be now grown too much out of use,
yet unless men in this condition do so judge and condemn
themselves as to forbear the Communion, they will one day
find that the receiving of the Eucharist, while they are in a
state of thraldom to their sins, will greatly inflame their
accounts and expose them to the just judgment of God.

4. Nay, the Christian that has knowingly and wilfully All wilful
committed an act of sin that is not in itself of the most a while

heinous sort, as suppose a studied contrived lie, or beastly
drunkenness, or of furious anger without cause, especially if Eucharist.

266 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, it carried him so far as to do some notable very grievous hurt
- to his neighbour either in body, reputation, or estate, ought
to look on his Baptism as so far stained or blemished by it,
as that he ought not in a few days or weeks to come to make
his appearance before God at this heavenly feast; for all
wilful sin leaves a blot upon the soul, and renders it unfit
for so holy an ordinance, until it be wiped off by a hearty
contrition and humiliation toward God, and satisfaction to
them whom he hath wronged. And he who thinks light of any
one sinful action, when it is done with the whole consent of
the will, is in great danger of running into a habit, and
plunging himself into the sink of vice. And this is especially
true of those sinful actions, which have a mixture of several
evil ingredients : as, for instance, if the lie were forged with
a design to slander or abuse our neighbour, and make him
look more odious in the eye of the world than ourselves, or
if he did by the lie intend any real damage or mischief to
another ; then, it is not only a contrived falsehood, but it is
likewise compounded of malice and pride, which are most
grievous sins, and render the action very hateful in the sight
of God. So, likewise, that drunkenness, which is committed
on the Lord's day, and which not only for the time deprives
a man of his reason, but keeps him from the public worship
of God and is a profanation of the times set apart for His
service, this drunkenness is not only a bare sin of intempe
rance, but a robbing God of what is due to Him ; and these
sins do come up to these high crimes and misdemeanours,
mentioned under the second head, at least, to some of them ;
however, they are great defilements of Baptismal purity, and
put us into a condition very unfit to make our nearest ap
proaches to God in the Holy Eucharist.

If we have 2. If we have defiled our Baptism by any of these sins, we
tfsmG(rEap~ must cleanse ourselves by repentance, before we presume to
pentance receive the Holy Sacrament. Now it is allowed by all, that

only can J 111-

restore us repentance cannot be true and acceptable, unless it proceed
of the Eu- from a contrite or bruised heart and wounded spirit, that is,
diarist. from a mind filled with grief for our having offended a good
and just God and provoked His displeasure against ourselves.
It is agreed on all hands, that repentance must be accom
panied with a confession of our sins to God and a most

THE COMMUNION. 267

hearty humiliation of ourselves in His sight and earnest CHAP.

prayers for pardon ; but, above all, it is to be observed, that -

repentance chiefly consists in a sincere resolution against all
sin for the time to come, in a change of mind; a turning
from vice to virtue, from Satan to God. But there are three
circumstances, in which the repentance of Christians now-a-
days comes short of that, which was practised in the primitive
Church, and which probably the Apostles themselves taught
the first Christians.

(1.) The first of these particulars was, frequent fasting, and Repent-
abstinence from all the most innocent pleasures of life. This
was the ancient method, by which they who were touched
with a sense of their sins expressed their inward grief; net alms-deeds
by forbearing flesh and eating fish and using other agree
able meats and drinks, as the Papists do, but living often for
several days together on bread and water and always using
a very spare and coarse diet. All the most pious ancient
Christians did indeed frequently exercise themselves in fast
ing and prayer ; but it was required of those who were in a
state of repentance for any vicious habit or scandalous sin,
that they should afflict their souls in this manner more than
other Christians. This they looked upon as part of that " re- 2 Cor. x.
venge," which the Apostle threatens to the offenders at Corinth,
and commends them at another place for having used, to 2 Cor. vii
testify their indignation against themselves for their own sins
and follies. As Fasting is a duty, which our Saviour and His
Apostles have taught us both by their examples and doctrine;
so, certainly, the most proper season for using it is, when we
are humbling ourselves under the hand of God for our sins
and working ourselves into a hatred and abhorrence of them.
And the truth is, men scarce seem to be in earnest, when
they pretend to be sorry for their sins and to resolve against
them, but do not bring forth fruits worthy of repentance,
give no proof of their real displeasure against their own
wicked lusts and desires by mortifying and chastising of
them. The primitive Christians had greater reason to hate
and abhor sin than the men of this age ; for they considered
it as a thing that must cost them not only much anguish
and grief of mind in order to wipe off the guilt and eternal
punishment due to it, but for which their bodies too must

268 OF PREPARATION FOR

suffer, before they could hope for pardon and forgiveness.

1 But the repentance now in fashion is so very easy, that it is

no wonder, if men are under no dread of it and do with little
or no concern run on in a course of sin, when they have
hopes of making their peace with God at last by a few good
thoughts and pious expressions. True primitive repentance
directed men to lay fines upon their estates as well as punish
ments on their bodies. They did especially take care, that
what they saved by fasting should be laid out in works of
piety and charity d; and a repentance, which cost them so
dear, was one proper means to make them out of love with
those sins whieh occasioned so much expense. But such
cheap notions of repentance, as now prevail among Chris
tians, can do very little toward the amending of our lives;
when to bewail our sins and fetch some sighs over them
is thought as effectual as all the fastings and alms of the
primitive Apostolical Penitents. And, indeed, Christians
are now permitted without control to spend all their bodily
strength and estates in the service of sin; and scarce ever
think of repenting, until their bodies are so weak as to be
disabled for fasting, and their worldly condition so low, that
there is nothing left for the poor and needy.
With pub- (2.) In the primitive Church, they, who had committed

liccontes- , . n i

sion in the such sins as rendered them unfit for the Sacrament, were
Church! 6 obliged to confess those sins, not only in private to God, but
publicly in the face of the congregation, before they could be
again admitted to Communion. Thus they did in the most
perfect manner comply with the advice of the Apostle in
James v. « confessing their sins one to another." This most pious
practice of the ancient Church was, in following ages, greatly
corrupted and turned into a private confession to the Priest
alone ; but while the primitive discipline prevailed, and men
were obliged to confess and bewail their crimes in the public
assemblies, this was a mighty restraint to vice. And though
the restoring of this excellent discipline be a thing rather to

d TV TrepHrvfiav v/j.ui' Trjs vrjcrTtias [Kai eV y/J.epa.

TT€i/7)(TLV eVi^opTjye?^. Ap. Constt., lib. v. UpTc? Kal Xa^dvois /cat vSari,

c. xix. Illo die, quo jejunabis — com- T<£ 0e£ • av^^iffas 8e rty Troa6rr]Ta

putata quantitate cibi, quern caeteris TTJS SaTroVrjs rov apiffrov, ov

diebus comesturus eras, repones, et da- eff6ieiv war' eneivriv rrjv rj/jLep

bis viduae, pupillo, aut inopi, Sic. — X*?P? ^ opcpdvu 3) (TTSpopevq — .]
Herm. Past., lib. iii. Sim. v. § iii.

THE COMMUNION. 2G9

be wished than expected, and it cannot in reason be desired, CHAP,
that any particular offender should submit to a practice that
is now wholly laid aside (except in some special cases, where
the laws require it) ; yet certainly all Christians, who are
really affected with a sense of their sins and do in earnest
desire to amend them, cannot take a more proper course
than to confess all their wilful presumptuous sins, how
secretly soever they were committed, to all their serious
Christian friends in their conversation with them. The
shame, with which such a confession is attended, will be a
great check to a man in the whole course of his life. I am
persuaded, that every man is in conscience bound to comply
with that exhortation of the Apostle ; and he, that is of the
same judgment, and therefore resolves to confess all his great
offences to others, will be under a fear and awe, how he
commits such sins as will oblige him to take shame to him
self in the eyes of men.

(3.) The repentance of the primitive Christians was long; And this
it continued for several years together. No man, who had
been guilty of grievous sins, was received into communion, long<
after he had fasted and confessed his sin and humbled him
self twice or thrice in the public assembly; but he was
obliged constantly to attend the religious worship of the
Church, and that too in the most humble manner, standing
at the Church-doors, begging the prayers of the Clergy and
people, and this for several years together, according as the
Penitent was more or less careful to give real proof of his
conversion. And, in a word, no man was restored to com
munion, until he had by his behaviour given all possible
demonstration of his sincerity; and until it appeared by a
long trial, that he did indeed " keep himself from his ini- Psaimxviii.
quity," and refrain those lusts and passions, which had for
merly got the dominion over him. And it was this long
continued state of humiliation, which then went under the
name of ' repentance ;' this they esteemed to be that " re- 2 Cor. vii.
pentance to salvation, not to be repented of," as St. Paul
expresses it. And there is just cause to fear, that one great
cause why repentance now-a-days so seldom ends in a real
amendment, is, that it is so short and hasty. In the Church
of Rome, repentance is thought to consist in having a sorrow

270 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, for sin and not resolving to commit it again6, in confessing it

V

- to God and the Priest, and performing some such trifling
penance as he enjoins ; and all this may be done in a few
days, or perhaps in four-and-twenty hours, nay, in a few
minutes upon a death-bed. And though the Church of
Borne threatens the sinner that does not do his penance here
on earth with a terrible penance indeed to be done in Purga
tory, except he buy it off by purchasing an indulgence or by
some other very expensive means ; yet there is just cause to
believe, that few even among the Papists are afraid of this
imaginary fire. With us, sorrow, confession to God alone,
(except in some special cases,) and a change of mind, are
justly said to be true repentance, with satisfaction to men, if
we have wronged them. But I conceive in this we are de
fective, that we do not consider fasting, alms-deeds, outward
humiliation, and public confession, as very requisite, if not
necessary, to produce and give an evidence of this real change
of mind ; and, above all, we are short in this, that we do not
insist on the necessity of the Penitent's giving a sufficient
proof of his inward conversion by his outward carriage and
demeanour for a considerable length of time, before he be
admitted to the Lord's Table : in a word, because we make
the whole of repentance to consist in one or few actions of
the mind, which may be performed in a few days or hours ;
whereas the primitive Church looked on it as a long state or
course of sorrow, humiliation, confession, not to be ended, until
it did by experience appear that the offender was indeed re
formed and fit for the Holy Sacrament. It is upon the
whole evident, that the festival or wedding-garment, in which
we are to come to this marriage-feast, is either our Baptismal
purity or a sincere repentance that has approved itself by
actual amendment.

This was This was the only long and laborious preparation for the
only long Eucharist that was practised in the primitive Church. As for

prepara- ft^ o^ers^ W}1O were not in a state of repentance, they did
constantly attend at the Lord's Table every Lord's day at
the furthest, and not a few of them every day; therefore a
'week's preparation,' for the Holy Communion would have

e Cone. Trident, Sess. xiv. cap. iv. tritio dicitur — si voluntatem peccandi
Contritionem irnperfectam, quae At- excludat — donum Dei esse, &c.

THE COMMUNION. 271

sounded very oddly in the primitive times. It is certain a year's CHAP.
preparation was not thought sufficient for heinous offenders; -
and as for those, who needed not this repentance, but had
only sins of common infirmity or a single act of lesser sin to
confess to God and beg pardon for, these were (if not always
fit to receive) yet without any long or painful exercises, by
their daily devotions and humiliations, sufficiently prepared
for these holy mysteries.

And lest any one should think that I am too rigorous in This re-
those rules of repentance, which I have taken from the pri-
mitive Church; and does imagine that a man may be a
worthy communicant, though he have committed gross sins,
upon much easier terms than those above-mentioned, I desire
it may be considered,

1. That, by receiving the Sacrament, men do make the Because i
most solemn profession of their being Christians. He, who rjst
pretends to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ, must

at the same time profess to dwell in Christ and that Christ
dwells in Him : but now the practice of any wilful sin is
utterly inconsistent with this profession ; for " he who names 2 Tim. n.
the Name of Christ must depart from all iniquity," and, who
ever would " draw near to God, must have his heart sprinkled Heb. x. 22.
from an evil conscience."

2. It is evident, that the Eucharist was intended to be a And to be
means of our continuing in covenant and communion with

God and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit ; but now it is
the highest presumption for any man that allows himself in
any known sin, to pretend to communicate with those most
pure Divine Persons ; for what communion hath light with
darkness ?

3. Whoever receives the Eucharist ought at the same time And pre-
to present himself, together with the whole Church, a living seivesUto~
sacrifice to God ; but the offering of a sinful soul or body to God>
God cannot be a sacrifice acceptable to Him, it can never be

a reasonable service.

4. The very nature of a sacrifice requires, that all, who The nature
assist at the offering it or the feasting on it, should cleanse
themselves from all wilful defilements and pollutions, so far Purity-

as it is in their own power ; both priests and people, under Lev. x. i—
the Law of Moses, were forbid under severe penalties to offer

272 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, or feed on any sacrifice, before they had freed themselves
from all outward impurity. Now the sacrifices of the Law

LBV xv.

31; vii. 20. were types and figures of the spiritual Sacrifice of the Gospel;
and the washings and other purgations used by the Jews
were shadows of that inward purity, which Christ requires of
them who worship God in spirit and truth. St. Paul charges
them who had been unworthy partakers of the Sacrament, as
" guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord ;" so that if we
receive the Sacrament with hands defiled with blood and
violence or unlawful lust, with mouths polluted with pro
fane unchristian discourse, with hearts tainted with mali
cious wicked intentions, we are guilty of a real affront to
Christ Jesus Himself by offering an indignity to His Sacra
mental Body and Blood; and, as Chrysostom saysf, "If they
who rend the robes of a king are deservedly punished, they
who receive the Body of Christ with a defiled soul are to
expect the same punishment with them who tore It with
nails." And Basil the Great? argues for a necessity of much
greater purity in order to receive the Body of Christ, than
for them who did eat the flesh of bulls and rams offered in
sacrifice under the Law.

Primitive The primitive Christians were so fully convinced of the
publicly113 great necessity of being thus prepared for the Sacrament,
their SSrU ^hat it was usual for them to confess such sinsh, as they might
vate sins, have concealed from the knowledge of others ; and so to put
themselves into the state of Penitents rather than continue
in communion with the Faithful, when they suspected them
selves to be unworthy of it. It was in those ages the custom
for the Deacon ', just at the beginning of the Communion-
Service, to warn all to depart the congregation, that were but
Catechumens or Hearers only, not Orthodox or Faithful ; every
one that had a grudge against another, or that was guilty of
dissimulation, or that was any ways unworthy of the Lively
Sacrifice, that was not fully instructed or not fit to touch the
Mysteries with defiled lips. And many sincere Christians,
being convicted with the admonition of the Deacon and their
own consciences, did of their own accord go out with the

f B. p. 41. Ap. Oxon.]

a, b. p. 23. Ap. ' c. p. 53. Ap. Chrysost., (oo.) p.

h See the Penitential Disc pline of 39. Ap.

the Primitive Church, p. [38. Ed.

THE COMMUNION. 273

Penitents, and so were put into their rank, confessed their CHAP.
sins, and submitted to discipline ; for they believed that no -

man, who was in a state of sin, ought to approach the Lord's
Table. And it ought to be the prayer and endeavour of
every one, who has the honour of Christianity at heart, that
these admonitions of the Deacon may again be heard in the
Church ; and that the Christians of this age may be as
sensible of the danger of unworthy receiving of the Eu
charist, as they of the primitive Church shewed themselves
to be.

But it ought to be particularly observed that the danger Danger of
of unworthy receiving the Sacrament had not that effect on

Christians of old, that it has now amongst us; for they did
not from hence conclude, that it was more easy to live in the abstaining.
neglect of this Holy Ordinance, but only that they ought to
use the greater zeal and diligence in preparing themselves for
it. It is certain, that they, who had been guilty of any gross
sin in the first ages and were for that reason obliged to stand
in the rank of Penitents, did very much lament and bewail
their own condition, and thought their separation from the
Holy Communion to be a very sore punishment, though a
very just one ; they did, with prayers and tears and all the
outward signs of inward grief and anguish, desire and request
to be again admitted to the Holy Eucharist. This was the
only end they proposed to themselves in this world by their
fastings, confessions, and humiliations ; they were not of the
opinion of the Christians of this age and country, who seem
to think, that to live and even die without the Sacrament
is more desirable than to give themselves the trouble of a
diligent preparation for it, and to run the risk of being un
worthy communicants. I am persuaded, if the Church had
stuck close to its first and most primitive constitution, that
is, if all baptized Christians must have been either Communi
cants or Penitents, as they were of old, then men would easily
have perceived the necessity of being constant communicants;
except it can be supposed, that any should be so very singular
as to choose to live all their life-time in a state of such severe
repentance as I before described. But the truth is, the Chris
tians of the Apostolical times were under a full and just
persuasion of the necessity of their being in a state of com-

274 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, munion with the Church, and of receiving the Sacrament;
— '- and were therefore willing to undergo any hardships for the

obtaining of this privilege. But, now of late, men think the
Eucharist no privilege at all ; or, if it be any, they expect to
enjoy it, though they live and die in their sins ; and so a very
great, and perhaps in some places the greater, part of those
who go under the name of Christians, are either unworthy
communicants, or else never communicate at all for fear of
eating and drinking their own damnation. St. Paul is the
only holy writer, who lays before us the danger of unworthy
receiving; now I wish they who are so terrified with his
words would but consider the conclusion, which he himself
makes from this doctrine; he does not from thence argue,
that it is best to abstain from this Sacrament, but on the
contrary he says, " Let a man examine himself, and so let
him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup." And that
Christian, who argues in a manner directly contrary to the
Apostle, has just reason to suspect his own judgment.
Resolving III. To make ourselves worthy communicants, we must
f§ath?fu-n resolve with God's grace to keep ourselves undefiled for the
to come; f°r it ig evident, he that does not is not pure

sa

us for the jn heart, is not a firm and resolute servant and soldier of

Eucharist,

as it is a Christ Jesus. And the very same reasons, which I used to
mt' prove that he who receives the Sacrament ought not to allow
himself in any sin, are easily to be applied by the reader to
this head of discourse ; but it was necessary to mention this
particular, that so every communicant might have an eye to
the time to come as well as to the time past. Christ has de
clared the Cup in the Communion to be " the New Covenant
in His Blood ;" our English Translation indeed calls it "the
New Testament," but all truly learned men will tell you,
that the meaning of our Saviour is "the New Covenant."
Now it is evident, that God in and by the New Covenant
promises pardon, grace, and eternal life, on His part ; but
then it is on condition that we perform the terms of the
Covenant on our part ; and these terms are faith, repentance,
and obedience for the time to come. He, therefore, who
comes to the Communion without a full and sincere resolu
tion of leading a holy life for the time to come, does not re
ceive it as a Covenant, or does not stand to his part of the

THE COMMUNION. 275

Covenant; and therefore cannot in reason expect that God CHAP.

should perform His part. And nothing is more evident than — —

this, that God can never be reconciled to any man that lives

in wilful sin ; and " If we say that we have communion with i John i. 6.

God, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth."

Yet we must take heed of a common error, which is, that Sins, after
sins committed after receiving the Eucharist are hardly, if noTmipar-
at all, to be pardoned. We may be infallibly sure that this douable-
is a mistake, if we consider that St. Peter was guilty of the
great sin of denying his Master with his tongue, though not
in his heart, within a few hours after he had received the
Sacrament from the hands of Christ Jesus Himself. Yet
there is no reason to doubt but he was forgiven, and at last
died in a state of grace and salvation, and, as he himself ex
presses it, " a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed." i Pet. v. i.
And what is more, Christ Himself, Who knew and foretold Matt. xxvi.
his fall, yet administered the Eucharist to him. Christ Jesus 34*
saw his heart, and knew him to be sincere, when he declared
that he would die with Him rather than deny Him ; he was
indeed overcome soon afterwards with the fear of suffering
with his Master through the infirmity of his nature. And
this may serve as a certain evidence that we are fit for the
Communion, if our resolutions are hearty, though they after
wards be broken: if it were otherwise, no man could ever
judge himself fit for the Sacrament ; for it is impossible for
us to know what we shall do hereafter, or whether our honest
purposes shall ever be brought to perfection. But from the
fall of this Apostle we should learn to use a double diligence
in guarding ourselves against temptations after we have re
ceived the Eucharist. We should endeavour to out-do the
Apostle in taking heed to our ways afterward, rather than to
imitate him in that confidence of his own strength, which
does so evidently appear in the words he used on this oc
casion.

IV. To make ourselves worthy communicants we ought
to receive the Eucharist with inward and outward reverence.

1. With inward reverence, which consists in having our inward re
minds filled with awful thoughts of That God, before Whom ™™™™~
we appear, and with Whom we desire to continue in cove- receiving»
nant and communion; with just conceptions of Jesus Christ,

T 2

276 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, as the only true Son of God by nature, Very God of Very
- God, our only Mediator and Advocate ; with a due esteem of
the salvation and redemption wrought by His Death, Resur
rection, and Ascension, the memory whereof we solemnize in
this Ordinance. And particularly we ought to entertain our
minds with a reverential consideration of the Eucharist itself,
as the most valuable and beneficial institution that God ever
vouchsafed to men, as being what our Saviour intended it,
that is, His Body, given or offered to God for us, His Blood
shed for the remission of our sins ; for though the substance
of Bread and Wine remain, yet they are in mystery and
power the sacrificed Body and Blood of Christ, and they that
do not discern the Body of our Lord in the Eucharist are in
St. Paul's judgment unworthy receivers.

2. We must perform this service and receive this Sacra
ment with an outward reverence. The Christians at Corinth
i Cor. xi. are blamed by St. Paul chiefly for want of this. For "first
of all they had divisions among them, when they came to
gether" to administer and receive the Eucharist; some
i Cor. xi. came with a ravening hunger, and others came " drunken,"
that is, their spirits were too much elevated with what they
had drunk at the supper, which the Corinthians had in the
Church just before the Eucharist, in imitation of our Lord
and Saviour, Who first administered the Sacrament just after
He had eaten the Passover. This supper was one great
occasion of all these disorders, and therefore St. Paul clearly
intimates, that he would have them eat it at home or in

1 Cor. xi. some private house ; for, says he, " Have ye not houses

to eat and drink in, or despise ye the Church of God?"
And, " If any man hunger, let him eat at home or in some
private house." It was at this supper, that the poor were
neglected, and the rich eat and drank more than enough.
Judei2; This supper was called a feast of love and charity; but the

2 Pet. 11. 3. ^^ kere took their « own supperk," which they had brought

with them, and " shamed them that had not" wherewithal to
entertain themselves. This want of charity was a very ill
preparation for the Eucharist, which they received presently
after. W7hen he therefore charges them with eating and

k 1 Cor. xi. 21, 22. irpoXa^dv^iv hand,' that is, before the Eucharist,
seems here to signify ' taking before- not ' to take before others.'

THE COMMUNION. 277

drinking " unworthily/' he means performing the Ordinance CHAP.

in so unseemly and unbecoming a manner as these Corin

thians did ; and he immediately declares, that they were for 27.
this reason " guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord."

2. We ought particularly to shew our reverence, by re- And out-
ceiving it in an humble posture of body; because it is anrenceof
action by which we covenant and communicate with God, body'
by which we expect to receive pardon and grace from Him.
The ancient Christians did never worship what they received
as the Very Christ, both God and Man, which the Papists
have done for many ages past, and still do (and in this I
believe them guilty of idolatry) ; but they treated it de
cently1, they came to it as to the Body of their King. It is
commonly believed that Christ and His Apostles sat at the
Communion ; but this is all mistake. Our Translation in
deed says, they " sat down," but this was to eat the Pass- Matt. xxvi.
over ; and it is certain that the Greek word signifies not ' to
sit,' but 'lie down/ and it is sometimes so turned in our Mark v. 40.
English Bibles. Now it is certain that the Jews, in eating
the Passover, did use several prayers and hymns ; and if
they pronounced or sung them, while they thus leaned or
lay along, then it must be owned, that this was a posture of
devotion in our Saviour's time ; but if they rose up, and so
changed their posture in order to pray and sing at the Pass
over, then we have the same reason to believe that they did
so too in order to administer and receive the Eucharist. It
is certain, that the long and solemn prayer, used by Christ"1,
(John xvii.) was offered by Him in the room where He in
stituted the Sacrament ; and there is reason to believe, that
the prayer itself was part of the devotion which He used on
the occasion of His administering the Eucharist. And He
cannot be supposed to have prayed in any posture but what
was humble and fit for the worship of God.

V. To make us worthy receivers, it is necessary that we What is the
should have a competent knowledge of the nature of the
Eucharist ; to which end I shall briefly explain the history nst» ¥

es

of the Institution, as it is recorded by St. Matthew, of 'blessing
St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul. Now we are informed and Cup.
that, " after Christ and His Apostles had eaten the Passover,

1 See Part I. p. [237.] m See the Introduction.

278

OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP.
V.

xiv. 22;
Luke xxii.
19; 1 Cor.
xi. 23.

Luke xxii.
19; 1 Cor.
xi. 24.

1 Sam. ix.
13.

He took Bread and blessed itn." The main point is, what is
meant by ' blessing * the Bread; now it is certain, this word
is capable of several significations. And, first, some will
have it to mean no more than ' giving thanks' over it, as
the master of the feast among the Jews used to do, espe
cially because St. Luke and St. Paul use this very word
upon this occasion. But it is clear0 beyond all doubt, that
both these words have the same meaning in this history;
and the meaning is, that Christ did by proper ways and
means give or procure a blessing to the Bread which He
had taken into His hands. I deny not but this might be
done in a remote and less proper sense, by calling on God,
and praising Him for being the Author of bread and all
other fruits of the earth ; but there are two other ways of
blessing bread or any other creature, namely, offering it to
God, as Samuel did the sacrifice; for by this means he was
said to ' bless' it : therefore all sacrifices are called ' bless
ings/ both the meal-p and drink -offering, and also the beastq
offered at the altar. Whatever was offered at God's altar
did become God's peculiar property, and was thereby blessed
and sanctified. Or, lastly, to ' bless' may signify to obtain by
prayer a special Divine blessing upon any creature. Thus
Christ ' blessed1'' the Bread and Fishes, that is, He did by

n Learned men have observed, that
iv here is a participle of the
second aorist, not of the present, or
praeter-imperfect tense. So the Critics;
and observe, that it is expi'essly said,
that He took the Cup "after supper," or
" when he had supped." Luke xxii. 20;
1 Cor. xi. 25.

0 This is evident, because where
St. Matthew and St. Mark say, Christ
"blessed" the Bread, St. Luke and St.
Paul say, " He gave thanks," or ' Eu-
charistized ' the Bread : and though the
three Evangelists do agree in saying,
" He gave thanks," or ' Eucharistized'
the Cup ; and St. Paul also says in
one place, that He 'Eucharistized' the
Cup as He had the Bread, 1 Cor. xi.
24, 25 ; yet at another place he calls
it " the Cup of blessing, which we
bless," 1 Cor. x. 16. If therefore St.
Paul had said, ' which we Eucharis-
tize,' instead of "which we bless," the
sense of the words had still been the
same ; for it is certain, that both these
words are transitive in this history.

P Joel ii. 14. " He will leave a bless
ing behind Him, even a meat-offering,
and a drink-offering."

q Mai. ii. 2, 3. God says to the

?riests, " I will curse your blessings,
will deprive you of the shoulder, and
will dash the maw upon your faces,
even the maw of your solemn feasts,"
or sacrifices. So the LXX excellently
well render it, and their Hebrew Books
varied very little from the present ; the
shoulder and maw were the known
portion of the priest in all peace-offer
ings.

r In the two histories here men
tioned, there is a plain proof that to
'bless' and ' Eucharistize' are words
of the very same meaning. The first
history mentions five loaves only ; this
is related by all four Evangelists; the
three first (Matthew xiv. 19 ; Mark vi.
41 ; Luke ix. 16) do agree in using
the same words, "He blessed them;"
but St. John says, " He Eucharistized
them," John vi. 11, 23. In the other
history there is mention of seven loaves.

THK COMMUNION. 279

prayer obtain the Divine power to descend upon them, by CHAP,
which they were so multiplied as to feed several thousands. -
Now the whole Christian Church, till of very late years, did
by her practice declare, that she believed Christ to have
blessed the Bread in all these three senses. Not, indeed, that
the ancients thought any miraculous change made in the
Bread and Wine, or expected that they should be multiplied,
as the loaves and fishes were; but they conceived that the
Bread and Wine, by the Holy Spirit or Divine benediction,
were made the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ. Thus
the elements were blessed, not only by having most solemn
praises pronounced over them, but by being offered to God
in remembrance of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood,
and by a prayer to God to render them the Body and Blood
of Christ in life and power, though not in natural substance.
It must also be observed, that our Saviour did, by an act of
His own will, appoint or depute the Bread and Wine to be
His Body and Blood in mystery, before He offered them to
God; and then, having blessed them in the manner now
described, He distributed first the Bread and then the Cup ;
at the giving the former He said, " This is My Body given,"
or offered to God " for you ;" for, when He appointed the
Bread to be a figure of His Body, and as such offered it to
God, He did then as a Priest, under this figure of Bread,
present His own natural Body to His Father, as a Sacrifice
for the sins of men ; and therefore He bids them eat it as
His Body "given" or broken "for them." At the delivery
of the Cup, He bids them " all drink of it ;" for it was His
Blood, now " shed for them and for many," even as many as
should believe and obey Him, " for the remission of sins :"
for, when He poured out and offered the Wine, He did
thereby give or resign His Blood to be shed for the forgive
ness of sin to all true communicants. Thus, it is certain,
the ancient primitive Church of Christ understood this his
tory of the Institution of the Eucharist. And this is the
most proper meaning of the words themselves ; for which

St. Matthew says, " He Eucharistized" fishes," Mark viii. (j, 7. This latter

both the loaves and fishes, Matthew xv. history is omitted by SS. Luke and

36. St. Mark says, " He Eucharistized John,
the loaves," and " He blessed the

280 OF PREPARATION FOR

CHAP, two reasons joined together I cannot but conclude this to
- have been the sense and intention of Christ Himself.

From this it appears, what is the true method of celebrat-
administer- ing the Eucharist, which is, after having presented the Bread
diarist U" and Wine on the Altar, to praise God for having made so
plentiful provision of these and other creatures for the use of
man : then to rehearse the history of Christ's Institution,
by which the Priest does as it were open his commission, and
shew the authority by which he is now acting, that he does
it by virtue of those words spoken to the Apostles, and,
in them, to all Christian Priests, " Do," or offer, " this in re
membrance of Me :" and, further, by the repeating of this
history, the Bread and Wine separated for this use are parti
cularly declared to be the symbols, image, or representation
of His Body and Blood. Then they are to be offered to God
in memory of that great Sacrifice once offered by Him.
After which, the Priest and congregation are to pray to God,
that He would render the Bread and Wine offered to Him,
not only mere figures and images of Christ's Body and
Blood (for that they were before), but such figures and
images as may be in power and effect, though not in sub
stance, the Very Body and Blood of our Redeemer. And to
these purposes the primitive Church, after the Words of In
stitution, always used such a Form of Prayer, as the reader
will find at the end of the book, at this mark, No. 1.
Thebenefits It is particularly to be observed from that Form of Prayer,
receiving! that the ancient Christians believed that the Sacramental
Body and Blood of Christ were to all worthy receivers a
means of strengthening them in piety, [and] of obtaining
remission of their sins and everlasting life. And all this they
learned from the Scripture, rightly understood : for Christ
hath assured us, that the Flesh and Blood which He pro-
John vi. 63. mised to His disciples " are spirit and life ;" and St. Paul
i Cor. xii. says, that " we are all made to drink into the One Spirit," in
which words he clearly alludes to the Cup in the Eucharist ;
so that it is evident, that all good Christians do here receive
increase of grace. Further, Christ assures us, that the Bread
and Wine in the Eucharist are His Sacramental Body and
Blood " given" and " shed for the remission of sins ;" so that
they are the seals of pardon to all who receive them with

THE COMMUNION.- 281

duly-prepared hearts. Lastly, Christ hath said, " He that CHAP.

feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh My Blood his drink, hath

everlasting life, and I will raise him at the last day." From
which it is clear, that he, who with a true faith and other
good dispositions receives the Sacrament, does at the same
time receive an assurance of a happy Resurrection ; and he,
who receives without faith and other good dispositions, does
not perform the duty here enjoined by Christ Jesus, and so
has no right to the promises.

VI. The last means to render ourselves worthy communi
cants is self-examination. And how and in what particulars
we are to examine ourselves, appears by the foregoing dis
course. The questions, then, which every communicant
should put to himself, are these :

1. Whether he has been duly baptized?

2. Whether he has kept his Baptism undefiled? If he
hath, he is one of the most worthy sort of communicants : if
he hath not, he ought further to call himself to account,
whether his repentance be answerable to the guilt of his
sin? And because in these points many difficulties may
arise, therefore if any doubt remain upon his mind, he ought
to lay his case before some discreet spiritual guide, as the
primitive Christians did ; not in order to receive private ab
solution, but only to be well advised concerning the degrees
of repentance which are necessary in order to fit him for the
Eucharist after any wilful sin.

3. Whether he be sincerely resolved, with God's grace, to
keep himself pure and undefiled for the future? Without
this, no man can worthily receive it.

4. Whether he hath been guilty of want of reverence at
the receiving it ? that so, if he have formerly sinned in this
particular, he may for the time to come use more care and
diligence, and beg God's pardon for what is past.

5. Whether he hath studied to get a competent knowledge
of the nature of this Mystery ? If he hath not, I desire him
to read over again and again what he finds under this head
just above. And, indeed, all middling readers will find it
necessary to read the whole of what has here been said with
great attention. And I pray God give to all, eyes to see,
ears to hear, and hearts to understand.

APPENDIX.

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

NO. I. THE PRAYER IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WORDS
OF INSTITUTION IN THE MOST ANCIENT LITURGY NOW
EXTANT.

WHEREFORE, remembering Christ's Passion, and Death,
and Resurrection from the dead, and Return into Heaven,
and His second Coming with glory and great power to judge
the quick and dead and to recompense every man according
to his works, we offer to Thee, our King and our God, ac
cording to His appointment, this Bread and this Cup ; giving
Thee thanks through Him, that Thou hast vouchsafed us to
stand before Thee, and to sacrifice to Thee : and we beseech
Thee to look favourably on these Thy gifts, which are here
set before Thee, O Thou Self-sufficient God : and do Thou ac
cept them to the honour of Thy Christ, and send down Thine
Holy Spirit, the Witness of the Lord Jesus His Passion,
that He may make this Bread the Body of Thy Christ, and
this Cup the Blood of Thy Christ ; that they who are par
takers thereof may be confirmed in godliness, may obtain
remission of their sins, may be delivered from the devil and
his snares, may be replenished with the Holy Ghost, may be
made worthy of Thy Christ, may obtain everlasting life, Thou
being reconciled to them, O Lord Almighty.

No. II. A PRAYER TO BE USED BY ONE THAT IS GOING TO
COMMUNICATE, WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE USED EVERY
DAY BY A CONSTANT COMMUNICANT; AND, IF IT BE FRE
QUENTLY OFFERED WITH A SINCERE HEART, WILL PRE
SERVE A MAN IN SUCH A DISPOSITION OF MIND AS TO BE
ALWAYS FIT FOR THE HOLY SACRAMENT.

O MOST merciful God and Father, I acknowledge and
adore Thine infinite love in sending Thy Son Jesus Christ

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 283

to take upon Him our nature, and to suffer death upon the
Cross, as a Sacrifice for the sins of men. I bless the Divine
goodness and wisdom of Thy Son, in offering His Body and
Blood to Thee, and in commanding His Church to continue
the memorial of it until His coming again to judge the quick
and the dead.

Grant, O gracious God, that all Christian men may have
a just sense of the riches of Thy love and mercy in Christ
Jesus, and may be duly affected with His holy Life, heavenly
Sermons, meritorious Death and Passion, glorious Resurrec
tion and Ascension ; that we may all delight ourselves in
doing Thy Will and His, in offering the good Oblation, in
shewing forth His Death according to His appointment :
and, Lord, let the offering made by Thy Church be pleasant
to Thee, as in the days of old, and come up with acceptance
on Thine Altar; let Thy gracious Presence be with Thy
people assembled together and praying in the Name of Thy
Son. Turn not away Thy Face from the Priests, and the con
gregations that join with them in pleading the merits of Thy
Son's Death and Passion, in the manner that He Himself
ordained. Let the fire of Thy Holy Spirit always descend
on the Christian Sacrifice, and on those who offer it; that
their iniquity may be taken away, and their sin purged.

We are taught by Christ Himself, that, except we feed
upon the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood,
there is no life in us; and that he, who feedeth upon His
Flesh and drinketh His Blood, hath eternal life. Give, Good
God, to all Christian people, hearts seriously to believe and
consider these great truths, and truly to understand this
Mystery, that none who believe in Christ may live in the
neglect of this duty, or perform it in an unworthy manner.
Open their eyes, that they may discern the Body and Blood of
Christ in this Holy Sacrament ; that they may know and feel
the life and spirit, by which our Lord Christ is there present,
and no longer look for the natural Body and Blood, which are
in Heaven only, and which must there remain until the time
of restitution of all things. Grant, that all Christians may
receive these Pledges of Salvation with awe and reverence,
equally abhorring profaneness and superstition ; that all, who
call Christ their Master, may continue with one accord in

284 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

breaking of this Bread, that they may all be One Body and
One Loaf; and that this Feast of Love may no longer be the
occasion of strife and division.

And since the Blood of Thy Son is the Blood of the Eternal
Covenant, and that we cannot in reason hope to partake of
Thy Promises, unless we perform the conditions on which
they are made, grant that none may presume to come to this
Fountain, which Thou hast opened for sin and for unclean-
ness, without broken hearts and bruised spirits, without
a sincere sorrow for all their known wilful sins, and a sin
cere resolution of obedience for the time to come. Let no
man dare to approach these Heavenly Mysteries, but such
as earnestly desire and endeavour to keep their Baptismal
Covenant undefiled, by persisting to renounce the devil, the
world, and the flesh, and to contend for the Faith which was
once delivered to the saints, and to add to their faith virtue
and universal obedience. Oh, let the love of Thee and Thy
Son fill and bear rule in the hearts of all communicants;
grant that none may come with boldness to the Throne of
Grace, but they who really love their neighbours in the same
manner they love themselves, that are free from all malice
and revenge ; and, if they have done wrong, are ready to
make satisfaction for it. May all that name the Name of
Christ depart from all iniquity. May all that eat of this
Bread and drink of this Cup, do it with a sincere desire that
Christ may ever dwell with them, and they with Christ ; and,
to that end, learn from Him to be meek and lowly of mind,
and to resign themselves up to Thee in well-doing.

Let these words of my mouth and these desires of my
heart be acceptable in Thy sight, especially in behalf of
myself; that I may never be guilty of the Body and Blood
of my Lord and Saviour, nor eat and drink them to my own
damnation : but give me grace so to labour, and prepare
myself for that Bread which endureth to everlasting life,
that I may always receive and eat it to my present comfort
and increase of grace, and to the final salvation of my soul
and body at the last day ; and, to that end, that I may in the
best manner try and prove myself.

I lie down in my shame, and my confusion covers me,
when I remember all my wilful sins ; I have a sincere indig-

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 285

nation against myself, I loathe my own folly and vileness, for
having acted contrary to my known duty. I have Here men_
sinned against Thee and against my own con- tionthe

. J particulars,

science ; but I humbly confess my sins, I confess with all the

them with grief and anguish of heart ; I abhor and
detest, and promise to use the best care and cir- cumstances-
cumspection, that I may avoid them for the time to come.
I humbly intreat Thy mercy and forgiveness; and I trust
Thou wilt seal my pardon in the Communion of the Body
and Blood of Thy dear Son. I lament and bewail, not
only my known but my unknown sins, such as I have com
mitted through ignorance, forgetfulness, and surprise, and
have wholly escaped my notice and remembrance. I lament
and deplore the frailty and infirmities of my nature, every
lesser excess, levity, and indecency, that I have committed.
Who knows how oft he offends ? O cleanse Thou me from my
secret faults. Oh, let me obtain mercy, and find grace to
help in time of need, through our High-Priest, Who is touched
with a feeling of our infirmities ; through the Oblation which
He is always pleading in heaven, and which He hath taught
His Church to represent here on earth.

O God, to Whom all hearts are open, all desires known,
Thou seest that it is the secret earnest purpose of my soul to
resist or fly from all the temptations of the devil, to destroy
his works, and to defeat his malicious designs against myself
and against all others. Thou knowest that I do from the
bottom of my heart renounce all filthy lucre, all sinful gain,
all designs of growing rich or great by the wages of un
righteousness, all immoderate love of wealth and honour;
and that I am sincere, when I pray to Thee, that Thou
wouldest keep me unspotted from the world. It is my hearty
wish and prayer, that I may mortify all the sinful lusts of
the flesh, and guard myself by Thy grace from those vices,
which are most agreeable to flesh and blood, and to which
I am by nature or custom most inclined. Grant, O my
God, that I may so thoroughly learn to deny myself, that I
may never, with profane Esau, sell my birth-right for any
pleasure or profit here on earth; but that I may be ready
to part with whatever is dearest to me here, for the sake of
Thee, my God, and of my ever-blessed Redeemer, and for

286 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAlt.

the salvation of my own soul ; and that I may be ready upon
a just occasion to die for Christ, as He hath for me and for
mankind.

Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief. I believe Thee
to be the Maker and the Governor of the world. I believe
Jesus Christ to be Thy True and Only Son by Nature. I
believe Him to be God of God, Light of Light, Very God of
Very God, my only Saviour and Redeemer, and the Judge
of all mankind. I believe the Holy Spirit to be the Lord
and Giver of life. To these Three really Divine Persons, in
Whose Names I was baptized, and Who do all partake of the
One Deity, I acknowledge all glory to be due from myself
and from all mankind. I believe Thou hast One Church
upon earth, and that the sincere members of it have com
munion with Thee, and Thy Christ, and the Holy Spirit,
and with each .other ; and, by living and dying in this com
munion, I expect remission of sins in this life, and a happy
Resurrection hereafter. Lord, evermore keep me stedfast
in this Faith.

Enable me, O Heavenly Father, to make my faith perfect
by my works, and by my life and conversation to adorn the
doctrine of my God and Saviour. O do Thou write Thy Law
in my heart, that I may never wilfully and presumptuously
sin against Thee, either in thought, word, or deed. And, for
asmuch as our thoughts are quick, and flow faster than our
reason, and our fancies more strong and active than our
judgment, and our passions warm and hasty and not easy to
be governed ; therefore do Thou, Lord, by Thy grace make
me more vigilant and jealous over ray own heart : give in
ward strength and vigour to my reason and judgment, that
by them I may be able to check and restrain all the vain and
foolish conceits of my own mind, that I may never let them
grow into sin by my consenting to them or approving of
them ; that I may never be so far transported through any
sudden heat as to do or say any thing to the dishonour of
Thy Divine Majesty or of Thy Holy Laws, to the hurt of my
neighbour or to my own shame. And because the tongue is
an unruly member and a great instrument of sin, therefore
I do in an especial manner beg the assistance of Thy Spirit,
that I mav tame and bridle it, and be always slow to speak,

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 287

except where Thy honour, and the vindication of truth and
innocence, or the good of myself or my neighbour, is con
cerned; or, at least, where I may please others without offend
ing Thee.

Above and beyond all things else, grant that I may love
Thee, my God, and so keep the first and greatest Command
ment. Thou art infinitely amiable in Thyself, and full of
love toward us. All that we can know of Thee excites me to
love Thee more and more ; and to renounce every thing which
is contrary to the love I owe to Thee. Thou art my Chief
Good; Thy gracious Presence makes Heaven what it is, a
place of perfect happiness; I desire and sincerely will endea
vour, that my treasure may be there, and my heart there. I
love and adore Thy Son, not only as my Lord and my God,
and possessed of the same Divine Nature with Thee, but as
my Saviour and Redeemer, Who shed His own Blood for my
sake. O grant, that if Thou in Thy Providence shalt call me
to it, I may shed mine for Thee and Him.

Let my love toward Thee make me well affected to all men,
peaceful and reconcileable, easy to forgive such wrongs as
are to be forgiven, just and upright in my dealings, ready to
give to all their due and to return good for evil. Give me a
tenderness and compassion for the souls and bodies of all
men; make me fearful of hurting them in their goods,
estates, and reputations ; dispose me to do every thing that
reasonably I can for the present and eternal good of all, and
especially of those of the household of faith. O pardon and
forgive mine enemies : incline their hearts to turn and re
pent, that I may joyfully embrace them as my friends and
brethren ; and, if, when I am bringing my gift to the Altar, I
remember that my brother hath any wrong to lay to my charge,
I [may] profess myself in full purpose to do all that can in
justice be required of me, in order to procure peace and re
conciliation with him before I offer my gift. If I am forced
in my own defence to go to law, or to deal severely with any
man, yet grant that I may always preserve a charitable dis
position toward my adversary, and never use extreme rigour.

Thou, O Lord, dost justly resist the proud and give grace
to the humble. I desire sincerely to walk humbly with
Thee, my God, and with my fellow-creatures. Grant that I

288 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

may always approach Thine House and Altar with fear and
reverence, and serve Thee and work out my own salvation
with fear and trembling. Arid for Thy sake, Good God, make
me submissive and obedient to my governors in Church
and State, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
I desire not great things for myself; I abhor the thoughts of
assuming or usurping what belongs not to me. I have taken
on me the yoke of the blessed Jesus, Who was meek and
lowly of heart. O grant that I may never shake it off
through a proud or rebellious spirit.

Grant, O God, that I may put my trust in Thee, and be
doing good ; that I may in all conditions of life submit to
Thy appointments, cheerfully acknowledge Thy right of
dominion over us, and the wisdom, justice, and goodness of
all Thy proceedings with myself and other men ; that in
whatever state I am I may learn to be content, and rejoice
in tribulations and in suffering according to Thy Will, if
that shall be my lot.

With these purposes and dispositions of mind I desire on
all opportunities to go to Thine Altar, and to join in offering
the Christian Sacrifice and in feeding on the Body of Thy
Son and in drinking His Blood. Oh, Thou that hast put
these good desires into my heart, be pleased to bring them
all to good effect, through the merits and mediation of Thy
Blessed Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

No. III. DEVOTIONS AT THE TIME OF RECEIVING.

At going into the Chancel, or towards the Lord's Table, before
the Offertory begins, say,

LIKE as the hart desireth the water-brooks, so longeth my
soul after Thee, O God. My heart is athirst for God, even
for the Living God. Oh, let me come to appear in the Pre
sence of God. I will go unto the Altar of God, even of the
God of my joy and gladness ; and there will I give thanks
unto Thee, O God, my God.

At the offering thine alms, say,

O Almighty God, Possessor of heaven and earth, of Thine
own give I Thee. Accept of this freewill-offering of mine

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 289

hands, as a testimony of mine acknowledgment of Thy right
over all that I enjoy, as an expression of my love and charity
to ChristVpoor members, and as a small proof of my love to
Him. O grant that all my alms-deeds may be done with
such purity of intention, and with such a liberal hand and
heart, that they may be as a sacrifice of sweet-smelling
savour in Thy sight, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

If thou art poor, and hast no alms to give, say,

Thanks and glory be to God, Who made both poor and
rich, and careth for both alike ; that gives worldly goods
plentifully to some, that so their abundance may be a supply
to the wants of others. May all that partake of their charity
bless God, Who disposes men to give of what they have with
open hands and cheerful hearts. God reward them an hun
dred-fold into their bosom ; may all happiness and eternal
salvation come to them and their families. Accept, O Lord,
my willing mind, my charitable desires ; accept my prayers
in behalf of them who contribute to the relief of the poor and
needy ; and let my crying come unto Thee, through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Amen.

When the Priest places the alms and the Bread and Wine on
the Altar, say,

The Lord accept thine Oblations, and perform all thy
petitions, in behalf of thyself and us.

After the Prayer of Consecration, say,

O most merciful Lord God, as we do believe Thy Son
Jesus Christ, the High-Priest of our Oblation, to be now and
always appearing at the Ilight-Iiand of Glory, and always pre
senting His crucified and now glorified Body in our behalf;
so we beseech Thee, let His intercession prevail with Thee
for the acceptance of the services performed by Thy Church
here on earth, according to His appointment. Reject not us
nor our Oblations, while we wholly depend upon Thy Son
Christ Jesus, as our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

290 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

Just before you receive the Sacrament of Chrisfs Body, say,

What am I, vile dust and ashes, that I should be admitted
to this royal feast, to eat the Heavenly Bread, which the Son
of God giveth to His Church ? May I eat it, not only with
my mouth but with my mind ; may I truly discern the Lord's
Body, and be replenished with the life and spirit of these
Holy Mysteries. I wholly resign myself up to Thee, O Holy
Jesus, Who hast given Thyself for me ; do Thou be pleased to
take possession of me, and grant that I may continue Thine
for ever ; let Thy Holy Spirit dwell and bear rule in me,
cleanse and purify me from all sin, and quicken my mortal
body, and seal me to the day of redemption.

Between receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, say
as much as the time will permit of what here follows.

Blessed be Thy Name, O Lord Jesus, for this Thine ines
timable gift; for this comfort, which Thou affordest me in
this vale of tears.

As long as I live, will I magnify Thee ; as long as I have
my being, I will most thankfully acknowledge Thy goodness
in offering Thy Body and Blood as a Sacrifice for my sins,
and feeding and strengthening my body and soul to ever
lasting life by these Pledges of Thy love.

Let this Holy Food repair in me whatever has been de
cayed by the lusts of the flesh or the wiles of Satan.

Let my understanding for the future be exercised in the
knowledge of Thee, and of those Divine Truths which Thou
earnest from Heaven to teach us, which alone can make
me wise unto salvation.

May my will choose and delight in my God and Saviour
above all things, as the chiefest good and the most desirable
portion.

May my affections be entirely fixed upon my Maker and
Redeemer, as the most lovely, perfect, satisfying enjoyment.

May my judgment always direct me to refuse evil and to
choose good ; to prefer things eternal before things temporal ;
heaven before earth, and God before all.

O may my soul by frequent Communion be firmly and

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 291

unalterably bent into an union and conformity with my God
and Saviour ; so that in all things I may do His Will, not my
own. These are now the desires of my heart; O may they
ever be so. Amen, Lord Jesus, Amen.

Just before receiving the Cup, say,

I will take the Cup of salvation, and call upon the Name
of the Lord ; I will call upon Him for pardon, grace, and
salvation. He will not reject my prayer, nor turn His
mercy from me.

After you have received in both kinds, say,

O Heavenly Father, we are taught by Thy Son Jesus Christ,
that he who feedeth on His Flesh and drinketh His Blood
hath eternal life ; I have endeavoured in the sincerity of my
heart to fulfil the will of my Lord and Saviour, according to
His own appointment. Be it therefore unto me according to
His word. May the hopes of eternal life be my support and
comfort in this world ; and may the enjoyment of it be my
portion for ever.

Grant, O God, that I may be truly sanctified both in body
and soul, through the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant -, and
that I may never tread it under foot, or do despite to the
Spirit of grace. By feeding us with the Body of Thy Son,
and giving His Blood to be drank by us, Thou affordest us
the greatest assurance of Thy love and favour toward us that
we can expect in this life ; do Thou give us a heart duly to
esteem and value these testimonies of Thy grace and mercy.

In this Sacrament Thou sealest Thy promises of pardon,
grace, and everlasting happiness to all sincere communicants.
The Cup, which I have now received, is the New Covenant in
the Blood of Christ ; and by drinking of it we engage our
selves to believe and live according to the Gospel of our
Lord and Saviour ; Grant, O God, that we may never forget
to take hold of this Covenant, and to perform the conditions
required on our part ; that we may cease to do evil, and learn
to do well ; that we may depart from all iniquity, and walk
in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, and
order our conversation in all respects, as becomes the Gospel
of Christ.

u2

292 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

I am Thine, Lord, by the right of creation, I am Thine by
purchase ; for Thou hast redeemed me by the Blood of Thy
Son, That Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sins of the
world. I am Thine by Covenant, not only by being early
dedicated to Thee in Baptism, but by my own free act and
deed; for I have renewed this Covenant with Thee in the
Holy Communion. I am under the strongest ties and bonds
to love and serve and obey Thee; and I rejoice in those
bonds; for Thy service is the most perfect freedom. I hum
bly trust, by the power of Thy grace, and by my own dili
gence, to persevere and stand fast in this glorious liberty
unto my life's end. Give grace to all Thy faithful Priests
and people, who communicate in this Sacrifice and Feast of
good things, that they may not break the yoke and burst
the bond of Thy Covenant, but live and die in a strict obser
vation of it, through Jesus Christ. Amen.

A Prayer to be said after the Communion, in behalf of all
men, but especially of Christians.

O most merciful and gracious Lord God, That art the
Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe, having
now humbly represented to Thy Divine Majesty the glorious
Sacrifice, which Thy dearest Son Jesus Christ offered, of His
own Body and Blood, relying on Thy goodness, and trusting
in Thy promises, and in the never-ceasing intercession made
by our Eternal High-Priest in heaven, I put up my prayers
to Thee in behalf of all that call on Thy Name, and have
communicated to-day in the One Sacrifice, throughout the
whole Christian world ; and also in behalf of all them that
desire to communicate, but are hindered by any just neces
sity, whatsoever it be.

Give unto me, O Lord, and give unto them a portion of
all the good prayers made by Christ in heaven, and by Thy
Church on earth. Be pleased now, in this day of mercy,
when Thou openest the treasures of heaven, and rainest
down Manna to refresh our weary souls, be pleased of Thine
infinite goodness to grant, that this Holy Communion may
be sweetness and strengthening nourishment to every honest
Christian ; that it may be health and safety in every tempta-

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 293

tion; joy and peace in every trouble; light and strength in
every good word and work; comfort and defence in the
hour of death, and against all the malice of the spirits of
darkness.

Unite all that have a sincere love for Christ and His
Gospel in the bonds of one common faith and a universal
charity; that no prejudices, mistakes, or private interests,
no wiles of Satan or worldly politics may keep us any longer
in darkness and division ; that, from the rising up of the sun
to the going down thereof, the One Pure Oblation may be
offered, and all Christians may be of one heart and one
mind, and praise Thee and their Saviour with one voice
and one spirit; that Christians of all nations and tongues
and kingdoms may agree in singing praises to Thee, Who
sittest upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and
ever.

Give Thy blessing to all Christian Kings, Princes, and
Governments; grant to them the spirit of justice arid mercy,
prudence and equity, the favour of Thee their God, and the
love of their people. Grant that they may so administer
the trust reposed in them, that they may be at peace with
Thee and with one another, always remembering the great
account they are to give to Thee, the King of Kings, and
Lord of Lords.

Pour down an Apostolical spirit on all Bishops and Priests ;
grant to them a zeal of souls, wisdom to conduct their several
charges, purity to become examples to their flocks ; that their
labours and their lives may greatly promote the honour and
the kingdom of the Lord Jesus ; that, being burning and
shining lights, men may rejoice in them, and glorify Thee
the Giver of all good gifts.

Turn, Good Lord, the hearts of children to their parents,
of parents to their children; of servants to their masters,
of masters to their servants ; of wives to their husbands, of
husbands to their wives ; of people to their Kings and Priests,
of Kings and Priests to their people; of the disobedient to
the wisdom of the just ; of all toward one another, and
especially toward Thee.

Let Thy continual pity cleanse and defend Thy Whole
Church : kindle a primitive zeal in the breasts of all that
fear Thy Name; that they may a*k and *eek for the old

294 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

paths, and diligently walk in them. Revive the first fervours
of faith and charity, simplicity, justice, patience, humility,
mortification, and self-denial, in all Christians ; that they
may indeed live according to the doctrine of the Holy Jesus,
without scandal or reproach.

I humbly beseech Thy Divine Majesty to accept the Sacri
fice this day offered to Thee in behalf of my dearest friends
and relations ; [name particulars ;] grant unto them all the
wise and holy desires of their own hearts ; grant that they
may never fall into Thy displeasure by any presumptuous
sin or wicked habit : let them be never separated from Thy
love ; grant that they may want nothing necessary to life
and godliness, and that their portion may be among Thine
elect people.

Accept of this Sacrifice in behalf of all that suffer wrong
fully, or that are under Thy correcting Hand ; sanctify their
afflictions to them, and then put an end to their sufferings.
Relieve all that are oppressed ; restore all to their rights,
who are injuriously deprived of them. Suppress all violent,
warring spirits, that unjustly disturb the peace of the world.
Support all that are sick, and either restore them to their
health or prepare them for a happy change. Lord, ease the
griefs, abate the pains, resolve the doubts, redress the hard
ships, vindicate the innocence, supply the wants, relieve the
necessities of all, so far as is consistent with Thy justice,
and goodness, and wisdom in governing the world ; but look
with a particular compassion upon those, who from a high or
plentiful condition are fallen into poverty.

Be merciful, O Lord, to all, not only to those whom I
have, but whom I have not, remembered : grant that all
careless and corrupt Christians may by Thy Providence be
struck with such a sense of their sins, that they may earnestly
repent and live well for the time to come; that they, who
through ignorance or worldly interest continue in the im
pure Communion of the Church of Rome, may be convinced
of their errors, and no longer sit in darkness and in the
shadow of death. To all heretics and schismatics give the
grace of truth, peace, humility, charity, and obedience;
and grant that none, who have the light of Thy Gospel
shining upon them, may throw themselves away, and have
their portion with the unbelievers.

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 295

Take pity, O Thou Lover of souls, on all that are strangers
to the kingdom of Thy Son; let the sweet sound of the
Gospel be heard in all the dark corners of the earth ; that so
all the ends of the world may remember themselves, and be
turned unto the Lord, and become one fold under One
Shepherd. Shorten the days of our trouble, and put an
end to the days of our sin ; and let the kingdom of the Lord
mightily prevail ; of That Lord, Whom I adore and love, and
pray, that I may still love Him more and more for ever and
ever. Amen.

No. IV. AN ADVICE FOR HIM WHO ONLY COMMUNICATES
SPIRITUALLY, ACCORDING TO THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN
THE FIRST PART OF THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, pp. 455, 6.
THIS ADVICE I TRANSCRIBED FROM THE MOST PIOUS AND
LEARNED BISHOP TAYLOR^S WORTHY COMMUNICANT*, AND
IS AS FOLLOWS.

" THERE are many persons well-disposed by the measures
of a holy life to communicate frequently, but it may hap
pen that they are unavoidably hindered. Some have a
timorous conscience — others are advised by their spiritual
guidesb to abstain0, — some are scandalized at irremediable
miscarriages in public doctrines or government — some dare
not receive it at the hands of a wicked Priest — some can
have it of no Priest at all ; but are in a long journey, or un
der persecution, or in a country of a differing persuasion —
some cannot have it every day, but every day desire it.

" Such persons as these, if they prepare themselves with
all the essential and ornamental measures of address, and
actually desire that they could actually communicate, they
may place themselves on their knees ; and building an Altar
in their heart may celebrate the Death of Christ, and in
holy desires join with all congregations in the Christian
world, who that day celebrate the Holy Communion ; and
may serve their devotion by the former prayers and actions

a [Cap. vii. sect, iii.] p. 386. Edition and of such he here speaks.
I680'- c [Here Johnson omits these words,

The Bishop must mean, mistaken " for a time, that they may proceed

injudicious guides ; for none other in the virtue of repentance further

would direct such to forbear, " who are yet," &c.]
well-disposed to it by a holy life;"

296 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

Eucharistical, changing only such circumstantial words, as
relate to actual participation.

[He proves by a citation from St. Augustine d, that] " when
this is done without the actual Sacramental participation,
this is called Spiritual Manducation. Concerning which I
will only add the advice of a religious Person ; ' Let every soul
be ready "and desirous often to receive the Holy Eucharist to
the glory of God : but, if he cannot so often communicate
Sacramentally as he desires, let him not be afflicted, but
remain in perfect resignation to the Will of God and dis
pose himself to a spiritual Communion ; for no man and no
thing can hinder a well-disposed soul, but that by holy desires
she may, if she please, communicate every day/

" To this nothing is necessary to be added, but that this
way is never to be used but upon just necessity, not upon
peevishness and spiritual pride ; not in the spirit of schism
and fond opinions ; not in despite of our brethren, and
contempt or condemnation of the holy congregations of the
Lord; but with a living faith, an actual charity, and great
humility, and with the spirit of devotion ; and that, so much
the more intensely and fervently, by how much he is really
troubled for the want of actual participation in the Com
munion of Saints."

I must have leave to add to what this admirable writer has
said on this occasion,

An Act of Spiritual Communion, to be used after the Prayer
above-written, No. II., when the person is destitute of an
opportunity of external Communion.

My soul hath a desire and longing to enter into the
courts of the Lord ; when shall I come to appear before the
Presence of God, in the assembly of His people ? In the mean
time, I know full well, O Heavenly Father, that Thy eyes are
in every place, in all the dark corners of the earth ; and that
Thou art every where near to all that call upon Thee faith
fully.

I rely upon the Sacrifice offered by Christ Jesus for the
pardon of my sins, for the assistance of Thy grace in doing of

tl [Serin, xxi. DC Vcrbis Domini. J

DEVOTIONS FOB THE ALTAR. 297

my duty for the future, and for the assurance of a happy
Resurrection to eternal life. I acknowledge it to be the
bounden duty of all Christians to communicate with Christ,
and with each other in that Holy Ordinance, where He has
declared His Body to be given to God for us, His Blood to be
shed for the remission of our sins ; and has commanded us
to eat the one, and to drink the other. Lord, Thou knowest
the desire of my heart to be to this Bread and this Cup;
and that, whenever Thou in Thy good Providence shalt remove
the obstacle under which I at present lie, my heart is ready
to join with any true Christian Priest and people in offering
this Sacrifice and partaking of this spiritual feast. In the
mean time, T lament the want of opportunity; and promise,
that, if Thou wilt deliver me from my present destitution, I
will give thanks unto Thy Name, I will pay my vows in the
midst of Thy people, and will with them celebrate the Com
munion of the Body and Blood of my Redeemer.

Accept, O Lord, of my will and desire, while I cannot
actually communicate. Let Thy gracious Presence be with
me, while I do now in mind and spirit approach Thine
Altar, and offer my mite, and join in the devotions of Thy
Church, and magnify Thy love and mercy in all Thy works,
and especially in the Redemption of the world through Christ
Jesus, and confess my unworthiness of the least of Thy
mercies, and especially of that which is the greatest. I
lament and abhor my sins, and renounce them for the time
to come ; I sincerely love Thee, and Thy Son, and His Gospel,
above all things ; I love my neighbours after the same manner
that I love myself; I desire their present welfare and their
eternal happiness; I sincerely forgive mine enemies, and
desire and purpose in all things to fulfil Thy Will. Lord,
reject not my prayer, nor turn Thy mercy from me; while,
though absent from all true Christian congregations in
body, but present with them all in spirit and desire, I join
with them in pleading the merits of the all-sufficient Sacrifice
of the Body and Blood of Thy Son, for the pardon of my own
sins and of all sincere Penitents, for the obtaining of all
necessary graces and of a happy Resurrection to eternal life.
I sincerely labour for, and have a true hunger and thirst after,
the Bread and Cup that eiulurcth to everlasting life. Oh,

298 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR.

whilst I am denied the Sacrament itself, be Thou pleased to
grant me the power and effect of it by the operation of the
Holy Ghost ; and dismiss me not without a blessing, through
the High-Priest of our Oblation, Jesus Christ, Thine only
Son, my Lord and Saviour. Amen.

No. V. A PRAYER TO BE USED BY A SINCERE PENITENT CHRIS
TIAN, WHO LIVES UNDER THE CENSURE OF EXCOMMUNICA
TION, OR IS REPELLED FROM THE LORD'S TABLE BY THE
MINISTER, OR OF HIS OWN ACCORD ABSTAINS FROM THE
SACRAMENT, ON ACCOUNT OF SOME GROSS AND SCANDALOUS
ACT OF SIN, OR FOR SOME EVIL HABIT.

O ALMIGHTY Lord God, Who hast declared wrath, tribula
tion, and anguish against every soul of man that doth evil ;
I am confounded with guilt and shame and with a just fear
of Thy displeasure for the sins which I have committed [name
them particularly with all their aggravating circumstances ;]
I am in Thy sight a polluted person ; I loathe myself; I
am a scandal to others, a spot to the Church, a burden to
the earth, and deserve to be scorned and rejected by Thee :
sin, like a crust of leprosy, hath overspread me ; I am justly
separated from the congregation of Thy faithful people. I
am unworthy, O Lord, I am unworthy to come into Thy
Presence, to eat the Heavenly Bread, the Bread of Thy chil
dren, to drink the Cup of blessing, the Wine of gladness.
My conscience accuses me ; the devils rejoice at my fall, and
aggravate my crimes, already too great. I confess to Thee,
O God, what Thou knewest before. I confess it to magnify
Thy mercy ; for it were just in Thee to destroy me, and to
leave me no time and place for repentance. I have deserved
death, but Thou delightest not in that ; Thou desirest rather
that I should repent and live. Blessed be Thy goodness,
which hath so long spared me, and doth yet spare me ; so
that I am not swept away in the midst of my sins. O Thou
That desirest all men should be saved, grant me a repentance
to salvation not to be repented of. Give me grace so to
express my godly sorrow by fastings, by watchings unto prayer,
by abstinence even from lawful pleasures, by alms-deeds, by
forgiving all that have offended me, that I may be received

DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 299

as a returning prodigal ; that Satan may be trodden under my
feet; that the hand-writing against me may be blotted out;
that all my sins, known and secret, wilful and unwilful, may
be forgotten ; that I may be cleansed from all filthiness both
of flesh and spirit ; that there may be joy in heaven at my
conversion ; that I may be again restored to the true sheep-
fold and to my old pastures, and recover the dignity from
which I am fallen, and again be made partaker of the Divine
Mysteries, the Pledges of Thy love. And when I am made
whole, grant me such firmness of mind, that I may never
again fall from my own stedfastness by committing any pre
sumptuous or wilful sin ; but that, with Thy Apostle Peter,
with Mary Magdalene, and with all sincere zealous Penitents,
I may for the future more affectionately love Thee and Thy
Holy Laws, and be for ever loved by Thee ; and, when this
life is ended, be received into my Master's joy, through Him
Who came down from heaven to seek and to save that which
was lost, Thy Son Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

CONCLUSION6.

I PROMISED in the Epistle Prefatoryf to the First Part, that
<( if any should attack the argumentative part of that book,
and do it in such a manner as became a scholar and one that
understood the subject on which he wrote, an answer should
not be wanting, God giving me life and health." But I never
promised to tire my reader and myself with tedious vindica
tions of my own personal credit and character against the
drollery or malicious insinuations of my adversaries. Dr. Wise
by using this method has effectually given up the cause in the
opinion of all judicious men ; for no man abandons himself
wholly to grimace and farce in a religious dispute, but he that
is destitute of proof or argument.

Dr. T rg is very gentleman-like in his style and address,

but by his many falsifications has forfeited the character of a
divine and a scholar. I shall therefore for the future think
it a sufficient answer to any book which I know comes from
his hands, to say, ' It was written by Dr. T r.'

I hope Mr. Lewis will not imagine his pamphlet unanswer
able, because no particular confutation of it has been pub
lished. We have been old confidants ; and though he seems
to have violated the laws of friendship, yet I thought it would
best become me not altogether to forget our former alliance.
I the rather chose to be silent, because the pamphlet is written
against me rather than against the doctrine of the Sacrifice
of the Eucharist; and I thank God I can easily forgive any
personal reflections. Mr. Lewis knows I have sufficient proof
that he was formerly a friend to this doctrine, and I am not
without hopes that he is so still; especially, because I am
sure, there is no argument produced by him in his pamphlet
sufficient to alter the judgment of any discerning person.
There is very little in it which has any appearance of proof
but what he will find answered in this Second Part, though
without any mention of his name ; for I was unwilling to ex-

e [This portion comes immediately f P. 45.

after the Addenda, in the First Edition » [Dr. Turner.]
of 1718.]

CONCLUSION. 301

pose an old friend, or to consent that he should be exposed by
another. And I hope he will not provoke me or any one else to
fescue out to him the places where his surmises are confuted.
But there is one point in which he seems to think that he has an
advantage of me ; I mean, because I give some countenance
to, or however do not directly contradict, the notion of some
of the Fathers, that the Sacramental Body and Blood are
wholly converted into the nourishment of our bodies. Now
when Mr. L. can prove that this is contrary to the nature of
bread and wine, and that it cannot be done without a miracle,
I promise to give up this notion, as a pious excess of those
particular Fathers, and which I had never entirely made my
own. Yet when this is done, I shall think the doctrine of the
Sacrifice as true and safe as it was before ; for there is no
manner of dependence between these two doctrines ; either of
them may be false and the other true ; I only mentioned
it by the bye, as an instance of the honourable opinion which
the ancients had of the Sacrament. And indeed there are
very few things said by Mr. L. but that I may safely grant
them to be true, without any danger to the main cause. So
I take my leave of Mr. Lewis, hoping, that since we cannot be
entire friends, yet that we shall be moderate adversaries ; and
that though he be fallen out with me, yet he is not in earnest
an enemy to the Sacrifice in the Eucharist.

The strength of my cause does in a great measure depend
upon a plain matter of fact, which is, that Christ in the In
stitution of the Eucharist said, " This is My Body given for
you." He declares that He did then and there give His Body
for the sins of men. Let no man think that he has answered
this, by saying that the time present is sometimes put for
the time to come ; for though this be true, yet no good arguer
will from thence conclude, that therefore the present is always
to be taken for the future. Let it be shewed, that ever any
matter of fact, besides this, was thought to have been done after
wards, when all the writers who relate it, and who are no less
than four, do all agree that it was done at that present time. No
man in any other case will say, that the present is anywhere
put for the future, except it do appear from other evidence,
that the thing was not then done, but that it was done some
time after. And if it can be proved that our Saviour did

302 CONCLUSION.

not in the Eucharist perform the Oblation of His Body and
Blood, and that He did it at some other time only here on
earth ; if this, I say, can be proved from any plain direct words
of the New Testament, I shall be ready to allow the force of
this argument. If indeed the Church had always understood
our Saviour as meaning the time to come, though speaking
of the time then present, this might be some prejudice against
the doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist : but since
Theodoreth, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Ambrose,
Gregory Nyssen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyprian, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and the author of the Constitutions, do clearly
understand our Saviour as meaning the time present ; since
the whole Church of Christ, till now of late ages, has by her
constant practice declared, that she believed Christ as a Priest
to have performed the Oblation of Himself, when He insti
tuted the Eucharist ; I must have leave to observe, that they,
who notwithstanding all this do assert that Christ meant the
time yet to come, must be men that pay greater regard to
their own opinion or to a modern tradition than to four in
spired writers and to the universal judgment of the Church
in the purest ages.

There is one point in which it concerns me to be very im
portunate with my reader, and it is a piece of common justice,
I mean, that he would take my sentiments from my own
words, and not from the representation of those who either
have already written against me, or may hereafter do it.
And if I can prevail thus far with those who are pleased to be
judges in this dispute, I persuade myself, there will be no
occasion for me to trouble the world with any thing further
on this subject.

If my reader be one of those, who is convinced of the truth
of this doctrine, I further beg his prayers for me, as often as
he performs the Holy Oblation or is present at the cele
bration of it.

h See Part I. p. [135, 147- ]

BISHOP POYNET'S TESTIMONY,

IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE EUCHARIST, AS REPRESENTED
IN THE FOREGOING TREATISE, IS CONFIRMED FROM A LATIN BOOK OF THE
RIGHT REVEREND DR. POYNET, LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, A MAN
VERY EMINENT AND ZEALOUS IN THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND, AND WHO DIED IN EXILE IN THE REIGN OF Q. MARY. THE
BOOK IS ENTITLED, " DIALLACTICON VIRI BONI ET LITERATI, DE VERI-
TATE, NATURA, ATQUE SUBSTANTIA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS CHRISTI
IN EUCHARISTIA."

It was first printed in or before the year of our Lord 1557, and reprinted
in the year 1688, for Griffin and Keble. The first edition or editions I
never saw ; that published in the year 1688 contains 82 pages in 4to.

'a tootle Mou t\)t touting of tins [Bishop Jewell's] Apology, came fortf) the
Diallactic of the famous Dr. Poynet, Bishop of Winchester, fcorit on purpose
to explain antt manifest fyc faitf) anU tJoctrine of ti)e CI;urc!; of 3£nglantf in
tfyat point a.

I THINK it very providential, that I had finished and sent
to the press the foregoing treatise, before I ever had seen or
heard of this book, directly or indirectly ; and that, within a
few days after I had put my papers into the bookseller's
hands, a learned friend, who was well acquainted with the
scheme of the doctrine of the Eucharist which I designed to
publish, was pleased to let me know, that I had the great
Poynet with me, as to the main of what I had asserted on
this subject, and withal sent me a printed copy of his book.
This I must confess was no small satisfaction to me ; for
though I was well enough assured that I had antiquity on
my side, and that no man need to be ashamed of a doctrine
so well supported; yet I was apprehensive, that this preju
dice lay against a great part of what I had advanced in this
treatise, viz., that no man beside myself had ever pretended
to discover those notions in the monuments of the ancient
Church and the writings of the Fathers, which I have here
ventured to lay before the learned world. I did not doubt

a Bishop Cosin's History of Transubstant., c. 2.

304 BISHOP POYNET'S TESTIMONY.

but that others, who were better versed in antiquity than
myself, must have seen these doctrines clearly taught in the
primitive Church ; but I was not sensible, that any man had
ever in print declared his sentiments to this effect ; and the
reader will therefore easily believe, that it was not only a
means of confirming me in my opinion that I understood the
ancients rightly, but a great comfort to find, that I was not
alone in the judgment I had made upon so important a head
of Christian divinity ; especially when the author I now speak
of was a person, that made so great a figure in our Reformation.
My Christian reader will believe me, when I most solemnly
assure him, that I have not altered one point of my whole
scheme, since I had the happiness of perusing Bishop Poy-
net's Diallacticon ; and that as it was not in my power to
make any corrections to his book, so neither has he occa
sioned any alterations in mine. And he that considers, how
exact an agreement there is in all particulars of any great
moment or consequence (excepting that of adoration) between
the Diallacticon and the Unbloody Sacrifice, under every head
that is handled in both books, will not only be convinced that
the doctrines here treated of are the more certain as drawn
from the same premises and supported by much the same
authorities, in books written by two persons at so great a
distance from each other in age as well as other respects,
and utterly unacquainted with each other's notions ; but will
likewise consider it as a standing proof, that when several
men do set themselves to examine any doctrine, where the
evidence and means of information are sufficient, they will
certainly agree in their conclusions as to the main, if they
are men of an impartial integrity; and this is the only good
quality, in which I pretend to compare with Bishop Poynet.
It is true, it was not the design of this most learned prelate
to treat of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice ; if it had, I see no
reason to doubt but his judgment had been as clear for me
in this respect, as it is in others ; not only because the doc
trine of the material Eucharist laid down by Bishop Poynet
is the foundation on which the Sacrifice stands, but because
of some short but very frank and apert intimations in the
Diallacticon, that his real opinion was for the Eucharistical
Sacrifice. There are also several propositions in relation to

305

the material Eucharist, which Bishop Poynet did not think
fit to consider, but which are handled in the Unbloody Sacri
fice ; and there is such a dependence and connection between
the doctrines asserted by this excellent man, and those
others which I have undertaken to prove in the foregoing
book, over and above what the Bishop has advanced in the
Diallacticon, that he who observes how strongly and decisively
he pronounces for me in almost every point that he was then
pleased to take under his cognisance, will have little reason
to doubt but that he would have given judgment on my
side in those other particulars, which did not fall under his
consideration. And I have the greater reason to believe so,
when I observe how great a regard this Bishop expresses and
pays to the primitive Fathers. There is one particular, for
which his book may be condemned by men that are rigid and
censorious; which is, that he cites several spurious pieces,
and takes many passages of St. Augustine and others upon
the credit of Gratian, who often very unfairly represents his
authors ; but the age in which he lived is a sufficient apology
for this. For learned men know very well, that the spuri-
ousness of those pieces and the unfaithfulness of Gratian
had not been so effectually discovered at the beginning of
the Reformation, as they have since that time ; and the in
genious reader, who has an opportunity of perusing his book,
will observe, that he generally produces such a number of
unexceptionable citations as are sufficient to carry his point,
without the aid of supposititious or dubious authorities. And
for the satisfaction of such readers, as want the book itself, I
have abridged it, so far as I thought it necessary, to give
them a sketch of this venerable Bishop's notions on this
weighty subjectb.

Bishop Poynet begins his book by observing, that the
Reformation was like to lose ground by means of the dis
putes concerning the Eucharist among the Protestants them
selves ; and tells us he had laid this matter greatly to heart,
and recommended the cure of this evil to God by his prayers,
and at the same time applied himself to inquire into the

b Advertisement. Wherever Bishop my reader to them, as in the foregoing
Poynet cites any passages from anti- book,
quity, that I have made use of, I refer

306

truth by examining the Scriptures and testimonies of the
Fathers, that so he might be able clearly to determine this
matter, and to give satisfaction to any that asked itc.

He reduces his discourse to three heads. "First" (says
he) " I will shew, that the verity of Christ's Body is given
in the Sacrament. Secondly, that there is a difference
between Christ's proper Body and That in the Sacrament,
and that the ancients so judged. Thirdly, I will shew, what
sort of Body That is, Which is received in the mystery,
and why It is so styled, according to the judgment of the
Fathers*."

1. He proves the verity of Christ's Body in the Sacrament
from the words of institution, as recorded by SS. Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and Paul. He adds, that "what our Saviour
says, John vi. 51. 53. 55, is by the Fathers both Greek and
Latin with one consent referred to the Sacrament of the
Eucharist6."

To prove the verity of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, he
alleges the authority of Justin Marty rf and Irenseusg, many
passages from St. Augustine out of Gratian, and then St.
Hilary11 ; several passages from Cyril of Alexandria ; Pseudo-
Cyprian. De Ccena ,• Jerome from Gratian ; Chrysostom*,
Pseud- Ambrosius De Sacramentis. Several places from (the)
true St. Ambrose k, Eusebius Emissenus from Gratian, Leo
and Synod. Rom., Gregory Nyssen, Euthymius, Theophy-
lact, John Damascen.1

He concludes this head with these words ; " Though our
faith depends not on men, but on the word of God; yet
when they confirm their judgment by the authority of Scrip
ture, it is of great use to pious souls and such as love truth,
to consider, how so many men eminent for their piety and
learning understood the words of Scripture, and with one
consent transmitted their interpretations to posterity: nor

* p. 1, 2. quod accipitur in mysterio, et cur eo

d p. 3. [" Primum ostendam veri- nomine censeatur, indicabo, secundum

tatein Corporis Christi in Eucharistia eorundem Patrum sententiam."]

dari fidelibus, nee has voces, Naturam e p. 3, 4.

atqueSubstantiam, fugiendas esse: sed f a. p. 1, 2, Ap.

veteres de hoc Sacramento disserentes f f. p. 5, 6. Ap. 1. 21.

ita locutos fuisse. Deinde discrimen h a. p. 20. Ap.

esse monstrabo inter Corpus Domini ' z. p. 1, Ap.

proprium, et Illud quod inest in Sacra- k particularly, i. p. 27. Ap.

mento, veteresque Patres ita censuisse. J p. 4 — 14.

Postremo cujusmqdi sit hoc Corpus

307

can he avoid the imputation of temerity, who shall dare
oppose so great authority01."

2. He proceeds to shew, whether the ancients believed a dif
ference between That Body of the Lord Which is distributed
in the Sacrament, and That Which He took of His Virgin
Mother ; or whether ' verity/ ( nature/ ' substance/ are to
be taken in a common sense, or in a manner peculiar to the
Sacrament ; " For," says he, " we must not only observe, in
what words the Fathers spoke, but what they meant in so
speaking"." He observes, that "Christ's Body" sometimes
signifies in Scripture That Body Which was born of the
Virgin, died, &c., and sometimes the Church, and at other
places the Sacrament ; in the first place it is taken properly,
in the others improperly0.

" This," says the Bishop, " ought in the first place to be
observed, that the ancients in discoursing on this subject do
apply the words of our Saviour, Joh. vi. 55, 53, 51, to the
Sacrament. Nor are they to be regarded, who deny that
this chapter refers to this matter, in opposition to so great
a cloud of witnesses. But their arguing is rather to be ap
proved, who think, that as this Evangelist speaks of the
humanity of Christ more sparingly, but more copiously of
His Divinity ; so, that John takes no notice of the insti
tution and external rite of the Sacrament, but that the true
genuine meaning is by him discovered, and more apertly de
livered to us. The minds of the Capernaites, when they
heard these words, were much offended, and thereupon they
went away and deserted Him ; but the Apostle who stayed
behind, being well advised and raised to a higher and more
august notion, heard [Christ say], (< The words which I speak
unto you are spirit and life." Hence it is, that the ancients
do all reject the common opinion, and the vulgar sense of the
words, 'This is My Body/ and what Our Saviour said concern-

m p. 14. [" Et quanquam fides nos- miserint ; neque temeritatis culpam

tra non hominibus, sed verbo Dei niti- effugiet, qui tantam audebit authorita-

tur, tamen quum illi sententiam suam tern contemnere."]

authoritate Scripturae muniant, utile n ["Neque enim observandum est

est admodum piis animis et veritatis solum quibus verbis olim Patres lo-

cupidis considerare, quo pacto tot ex- quuti sunt, sed quid etiam sibi vole-

imii pietate ac doctrina viri Scripturae bant ita loquentes."]

verba intellexerint, magnoque consensu ° p. 14, 15.
ad posteros interpretationes suas trans-

x 2

308

ing eating His flesh ; and follow the more divine meaning,
and that which is more agreeable to Sacraments, as they
affirm P."

He cites Chrysostom^, Pseud-Hieronymus in Ep. adEphes.,
several passages from St. Augustine in Prosper, s. p. 33. Ap.
1. 20, St. Augustine on Psalm xxxiii. and on Psalm xcviii.,
in which are those words, and then, e. p. 31. Ap., and his
Epistle to Boniface ; several passages of the same Father from
Gratian; and then Ad Dardanum, and On John, Tract 50;
Gregor. Nazr. and Gregor. Nyssen. in Homil. Pasch. Euse-
bius Emissen, from Gratian ; Ambrose from Gratian, and the
true Ambrose3, then Pseud-Ambr. De Sacramentis; and the
true Ambr.t

Having mentioned the words of St. Ambrose, " Christ offers
Himself as a Priest, here in an image, there (viz., in Heaven)
in the verity/' Bishop Poynet adds11, " He distinguishes one
oblation from the other; and though x both are truly per
formed in their way, yet that which is celebrated in the
Church is in an image ; the Verity Itself remains to inter
cede with the Father for us?."

Further, he supposes St. Ambrose borrowed these words
from Origen on Psalm xxxviii., where he speaks of Christ as a
" Priest now offering Sacrifices to the Father, and as being to

P'p. 15, 16. [" Illudin primis ani- orem au:ustioremque subvectos audi-

madvertendum occurrit, quoties apud isse, « Verba quae Ego loquutus sum,

vetercs agitur de hoc Sacramento, spiritus et vita sunt.' Hinc factum est

verba Domini nostri quae Joan. cap. 6. ut veteres omnes commune judicium et

referuntur, ' Caro Mea vere est cibus,' vulgarem intellectum in verbis illis,

&c. ad hoc Sacramentum omnes appli- 'Hoc est Corpus Meum,' et quas lo-

cant. — Nee audiendi sunt, qui tanta quutus est Dominus de comedenda

mibe testium refragante negant illud Came Sua, fugiant, et modum intelli-

caput Joan, hue referendum esse. Quin gendi diviniorem et Sacramentis ut ipsi

potius illorum probanda videtur oratio, asserunt magis congruentem sequan-

qui ut hunc Evangelistam humani- tur."]

tatem Christi parcius quam caeteros, * s. p. 40. Ap.

Divinitatem plenius explicare censent, r f. p. 21. Ap.

ita quae ab aliis Evangelistis de Sacra- s k. p. 27. Ap.

menti hujus institutione ac ritu tradun- * m. p. 27. Ap. ; p. 1 6 — 28.

tur externo, ea quidem Joannem non u ["Discernit alteram oblationem

commemorasse, sed eorum veram et ab altera, et quamvis utraque suo modo

germanam intelligentiam ab ipso nobis vere fiat, haec tamen quae celebratur in

patefactam, et apertius traditam esse Ecclesia fit in imagine, Veritas autem

indicant. Constatautem Capernaitarum Ipsa manet, ut advocatus pro nobis

animos, quum dixisset Dominus, 'Caro apud Patrem."]

Mea vere est cibus,' &c. valde offensos x Et quamvis utraque suo modo

atque perturbatos fuisse, et proinde vere fiat: I appeal to the reader,whether

deserentes Eum abiisse : intellexerant Bishop Poynet do not here declare for

enim crasse nimium et populariter : a true Sacrifice,

duodecim autem Apostolos qui reman- y p. 28.
serant adrnonitos, et ad sensum alti-

BISHOP POYNET'S TESTIMONY. 309

offer them also hereafter ;" he subjoins, " Origen writes to
men of learning and experience, and is not therefore in
telligible to every body ; but this he manifestly declares,
that the Sacrifices, which are offered here, are images of
That Verity, Who has entered into the heavens : — And
though these images have their verity too, yet that is dif
ferent from the proper Verity2."

He proceeds to cite Origen In Matth. and Contra Celsuma}
andb Homil. 7. in Levit., and next Epiphaniusc, then Pseudo-
Cyprian De Cosnd, and Cyril Alexandr.d, and several other
places; and then Theophylact, and John Damascen. He
observes the last to be a very inconsistent writer, that he
sometimes denies, at other times affirms, the Bread to remain
after consecration. He cites him for saying of the Sacra
mental Body, " This is that pure e Unbloody Sacrifice, which
God hath commanded to be offered ; " and reflects thus upon
the words, " If this be meantf of His assumed Body and
Blood, how is it unbloody ? If of His spiritual Body and
Blood?, what he says is trueh." He further cites Bertram
at large, and with great approbation, and ends with Aquinas
and Lombard. So his citations to prove the Sacramental
Body distinct from His [Christ's] proper Body born of the
Virgin, reach from p. 16 to p. 49.

The difference between the Proper and the Sacramental
Body he asserts to be, that the first has human shape, mem
bers distinct from each other, sense, &c., the other has none
of these ; one is not in mystery, the other is ; one is not
subject to corruption, the other is, it being materially bread ;
one cannot, the other may and ought to be eaten ; one is

z p. 28, 29. ["Doctis et exercitatis ther the Bishop or the Doctor are most

scribit Origenes, ideoque non cuivis in the right.

obvius. Illud tamen manifesto tradit, c c. p. 22. Ap.

Hostias quae hie offeruntur, imagines d f. p. 44. Ap.

esse Illius Veritatis, Quag penetravit e [" Hsec est pura ilia et sanguinis

ccelos. Et quamvis imagines istae expers Victima, quam Deus per Pro-

suam quoque veritatem habeant, tamen phetam ab ortu solis ad occasum Sibi

hanc ab Illapropria Veritate differre."] offerri jussit."]

a a. p. 9. Ap. f [" Si de assumpto Corpore loqui-

b Here Bishop Poynet produces those tur et Sanguine, quomodo sanguinis

very words to prove that the Body of expers est ? si de spiritual! Corpore et

Christ in the Sacrament is not the Sanguine, vera narrat."]

proper or natural Body, which Dr. B Here again he clearly allows the

Whitby alleges as an argument that Sacrifice, for the Spiritual Body is with

John vi. is not to be understood of the him the Sacramental Body.

Eucharist. The leader is judge whe- h p. 42.

310

contained in a certain place, the other is not, but is present
wherever the Sacrament is celebrated ; one was taken out of
the Body of the Virgin, the other is not, but is what it is by
benediction ; one is a natural Body, the other supernatural ;
one is simply properly and absolutely [the Body of Christ],
the other secundum quid, and improperly1.

3rdly, He goes on to shew how the Sacrament is the Body
of the Lord, more at large ; and wherefore our Lord and
His Apostle Paul and the ancients declared it so to be;
"not/' says he, "that the modusk of it, which is a spiritual
and secret thing, can be comprehended by human reason ;
or that we endeavour to pry into what is forbidden and
denied us ; but that we may follow what is delivered to us
by authority of Scriptures and of the ancients, which are
agreed in this point, excluding all human inventions. And
that is firmly to be maintained, which we have already
John vL proved, that not only the words of our Lord, but the words
used at the Lord's Supper, ' Take, eat, This is My Body/ &c.,
are not to be understood carnally but spiritually, and that
the same manducation is meant in both places ; when I say
not carnally, I mean not according to the letter, nor as the
words properly sound1." To prove that the words are not
to be taken carnally, he cites St. Chrysostomm, Pseudo-
Cyprian, Theophylact, St. Augustine11. He observes two
ways of eating a thing l carnally :' the first, he says, is to
eat it roast or boiled, and cut into small pieces"; the other,
to eat it raw, and to suck the running blood, as wild beasts
do. If we say the Flesh of Christ, strictly so called, is pre
sent, whether we mean, that It is raw, roast, or boiled;
whether entire, or cut in pieces ; whether openly, or covertly;
it is the carnal sense, and the words are carnally taken, if

1 p. 49, 50. cap. 6. sed haec etiam Ccense Dominicae

k ["Non quod modus iste, qui spi- verba, ' Accipite, edite, Hoc est Cor-

ritualis et arcana res est, humana pus Meum,' spiritual! ter non carna-

ratione deprehendi possit, aut nos cu- liter intelligenda esse, et eandem utro-

riose quae vetita negataque sunt inves- bique manducationem intelligi ; cum

tigare conemur, sed ut commentis hu- dico non carnaliter, dico non secundum

manis exclusis, quae Scripturarum et literam neque ut verba proprie so-

antiquorum Patrum cum his consen- nant."]

tientium authoritate nobis tradita sunt, ' p. 51.

sequanmr. Illucl fmniter tenendum m y. p. 40. Ap.

est, quod ante probavimus, non solum n s. p. 33. Ap. 1. 21.
verba Domini quae referuntur Joan.

BISHOP POYNET'S TESTIMONY. 311

they mean proper flesh ; we do not therefore not eat car
nally, because we do not see It. They who are blind see not
what they eat ; and men do frequently, in broth and soups,
eat flesh and eggs, which they neither see nor taste. And
this, says he, is what Chrysostom calls carnal eating. Now
the ancient Fathers observed two things in this Sacrament ;
and on the account of both it was deservedly called and
esteemed the Body of Christ. For 1st, because the Bread is
a figure of the true Body, it is deservedly called the Body.

2. Much more because it has the vital power joined with it.

3. But, most of all, because it contains both. That the
figure of any thing may, without injury, be called the thing
itself, Esaias shews, when he says, " The people is truly
grass." He gives several other instances, and cites St. Au
gustine's Epistle to Boniface, in which are these words, " If
Sacraments0 had not some likeness of those things, whereof
they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at allp."
He produces the words of Tertullianq, Nazianzenr, Augustine
Contra Adimantum, Chrysostom's Homily on Matt. xxvi. 26 —
28, and thereupon reflects on the Papists, who reproach others
as Sacramentarians, but do themselves set aside the Sacra
ment. 2ndly, There is another thing in the Sacrament,
which the ancients acknowledging affirmed [the Sacrament]
to be truly the Lord's Body; and that is the efficacious life-
giving virtue of His Body, Which is joined with the Bread
and Wine by grace and the mystical benediction. This is
called by divers names, by St. Augustine8, "the intelligible
Body," or "the invisible spiritual Body;" by Jerome, "the
Divine spiritual Flesh;" by Irenseus, "the heavenly thing ;"

0 ["Si enim Sacramenta quandam tual Divine Food Flesh or Body ;' and

similitudinem earum rerum, quarum affirmed this latter to be the entire

Sacramenta sunt, non haherent, omnino Sacramental Body ; and ' the heavenly

Sacramenta non essent."] thing' to be that Divine power of the

P p. 54-. Spirit by which the Bread is made the

q o. p. 9. Ap. Body of Christ, (as he seems to do at

r f. p. 21. Ap. another* place,) there had been a per-

* If this Right Reverend author had feet agreement between the Diallac-

distinguished between the ' heavenly ticon and the Unbloody Sacrifice in

thing' in Irenaeus, (as being the same this particular. St. Augustine calls

with what St. Augustine calls else- the Sacramental Body intelligible and

where the ' virtue of the Sacrament,' invisible, as being what It is, not to

which is called by others 'the Divine the eye of the body, but of the mind ;

grace and benediction,') and ' the spiri- to our faith, not to our senses.

* See the first reference in the next page.

312

by Ambrose, " spiritual food/' and " the Body of the Divine
Spirit," by all which the same thing is meant. And this is the
cause, why this Sacrament is most worthy of the name of the
true Body and Blood ; since it not only outwardly bears Its
figure and image, but carries along with it the hidden latent
natural property of the same Body, that is, the life-giving vir
tue ; so that now it cannot be thought an empty figure, or sign
of a thing absent ; but the Divine and spiritual Body of our
Lord, present by grace, full of virtue, powerful in efficacy.
We give the names of the things themselves to their virtue
or efficacy — nor does Scripture want examples of this sort ;
we will content ourselves with one instance, but an illustrious
one. Christ said of John the Baptist, " He is Elias," because
the angel said, " He shall go before Him in the spirit and
power of Elias." As John therefore was Elias, because he
possessed the virtue and power of Elias : so the Bread of
the Lord is the Body of Christ, because it has Its graqe and
vital power united to it4. And that this is no new contrived
opinion, but received and approved by ancient writers, we
will prove partly by repeating what has been alleged already,
partly by adding moreu. He proceeds to produce his au
thorities to this purpose, viz., St. Augustinex, and another
passage from Gratian, and in Tract on John i., on Ps. Ixv.,
Tract on John xxvi. and on Ps. Ixxvii., then he alleges
Pseudo-Ambrosius De Sacramentis, and the true St. Ambrose7,
Eusebius Emissenus from Gratian. And whether they are
the genuine words of Eusebius or not, they well deserve to
be translated, and are as follows, " z Because Christ was
going to remove His Body, Which He had assumed, out of
sight, and to convey It into heaven, it was necessary that on
the day of the Supper the Sacrament of His Body and Blood
should be consecrated for us ; that what was once offered as
a ransom might perpetually be celebrated in a mystery ; that

t See the last marginal note. rebatur in pretium, ut quia quotidiana

u p. 50 — 57. et indefessa currebat pro omnium sa-

x n. p. 32. Ap. lute Redemptio, perpetua esset Re-

y k. p. 27. Ap. demptionis Oblatio, et perennis Vic-

1 [" Quia Corpus assumptum abla- tima Ilia viveret in memoria, et sem-

turus erat ab oculis, et illaturus side- per praesens esset in gratia, Vera

ribus, necessarium erat ut die coense unica etperfecta Hostia, fide aestimanda

Sacramentum nobis Corporis et San- non specie, neque exieviori censenda

guinis consecraretur, lit coleretur ju- visu, sed interiori aflectu."]

giter per mysterium, quod semel offe-

313

because our Redemption flows with a daily unwearied stream
for the salvation of all, the Oblation of [that] Redemption
might be perpetuated ; and that this lasting Sacrifice might
always live in the memorial, and might ever be present by
grace, that true perfect and only Sacrifice to be estimated
by faith, not by appearance ; to be valued not by outward
sense, but by inward affection a."

He cites the same author for these words b, "The invisible
High-Priest turns the visible creatures, by a word, into the
substance of His Body and Blood, by His secret power,
saying, ' Take, eat, This is My Body/ '• And Bishop Poynet
observes0, how he explains himself in the next words d, "that
earthy mortal things are turned into the substance of Christ,
do you, who are regenerate in Christ, take information from
yourself." And then he adds6, if it be attentively considered,
how Emissenus, Ambrose, and other Fathers use the word
rnaturef ' and ' substance/ it may easily be perceived, how
vainly they make a rattle, who assert a carnal manducation
of the Flesh, without accommodating words to the subject-
matter. Words change their signification in every science :
genus, species, fiyura, and the like, denote one thing with
grammarians, another with logicians. We ought to observe
the same in divinity. When the Fathers, in treating on the
Sacrament, use the word ' nature ' and ' substance/ they
speak not in a physical but theological sense, not as natural
philosophers but as men discoursing of Divine things ; and
so giving the names of ' nature' and ' substance' to grace,

* p. 60. If I could h;:ve been satis- et Sanguinis sui, verbo secreta potes-

fied, that these words which are often tate convertit, dicens, ' Accipite et co-

cited by the writers on this subject, and medite, Hoc est Corpus Meum.' "]

which are extant in the fifth Homily c p. 00.

de Paschate, which goes under his name, d ["Quod in Christi substantial!!

had been genuine, they had not been terrena et mortalia convertantur, teip-

omitted by me in the foregoing work. sum qui in Christo es regeneratus in-

For this Eusebius lived in the middle terroga."]

of the fourth century: and though e p. 61.

learned men do not allow, that the f What follows, the reader will take

works which bear his name were ever as an apology for the ancients, for so

composed by him, yet it must be owned it was clearly intended, not as if he

that the words are in themselves as full thought that these expressions were in

of good sense and judgment, as any that themselves eligible. His apology for

were ever spoken or written on this the Fathers is just ; but it does by no

noble subject since the age of inspi- means follow that we should choose

ration. such ways of speaking, since the Church

h [" Nam Invisibilis Sacerdos visi- of Rome has made such ill use of

biles creaturas in substantial!! Corporis them.

314

virtue, and efficacy, the nature of the Sacrament requiring
them so to do^. He cites Chrysostom for saying, "We are
converted into the Flesh of Christ :" Epiphanius in Anchorato,
part of the words are those, c. p. 22. Ap., and again, d. p. 22.
Ap., Pseudo-Cyprian De Coend ; Cyril. Alexand. ad Cmlosyr.
in words like those, m. p. 45. Ap., and g. p. 44. Ap., then he
proceeds to Athanasiush, to Chrysostom, Homil. Ixxxiii. in
Matth. xxvi. among the rest, the last sentence !; Theodoretk,
and Euthymius, Leo, and Synod. Rom. from Gratian ; Hilary
from Gratian; Theophylact, Bertram, Trithemius, Bernard1.

But here a scruple starts up, viz., If we believe the grace
and virtue of the true Body to be joined with the Bread and
Wine, or — shall seem to attribute too much to the symbols
— the adoration of the Sacrament and peril of idolatry will
be the consequence of it. — " Now," says he, " as to what
concerns the adoration of the Sacrament, the ancients re
ceived the Sacrament with reverence and great honour, and
yet were safe from idolatry; and so might we too, by re
storing the ancient discipline and the form of catechism."
He shews, that the ancients adored, when they received,
from St. Augustine01. He cites him also from Prosper, and
after him Eusebius Emissenus, then Chrysostom in Horn. xxiv.
on 1 Cor., Ambrose on 1 Cor. xi., Theodoretn, and lastly,
Augustine De Doctrind Christiana ; who, having mentioned
the two Sacraments, adds0, "Every one, when he receives
them, being well instructed, acknowledges the meaning of
them, and venerates them, not with a carnal servitude but
rather with a spiritual liberty." "And here," says the
Bishop, "we see how Christians of old gave honour and
adoration, in receiving both Baptism and the Supper, with-

g p. 57 — 62. accederent, et quo pacto quum hono-

h a. p. 17. Ap. rem sive adoratlonem adhibuerint tarn

* t- p. 40. Ap. in Baptismo quam in Ocena celebranda,

k i. p. 46. Ap. tamen id sine periculo fiebat, aut scan-

1 p. (i2 — 72. dalo. Periculo ut hie liquet, quum

in s. p. 33. Ap. non ad id quod videtur et caducum est,

n m. p. 46. Ap. sed ad virtutem et significationem re-

0 [" ' Unusquisque quum accipit, quo spicerent : scandalo, quod olim religio

ref'erantur imbutus agnoscit, ut ea non fuerit coram infidelibus, aut mysteri-

carnali servitute, sed spiritual! potius orum ignaris, non dicam Sacramenta

libertate veneretur.' Hie videmus quali sumere, sed omnino de tarn arcanis

doctrina fueruntolim imbuti Christian], rebus, apud illos verba facere."]

priusquain ad Sacramentorum usum

315

out danger; because they did not do it, with respect to
what was visible and perishable, but to the virtue and
signification, and this without scandal ; for of old they
made a conscience, not only of taking the Sacrament, but
of speaking of such mysterious things before infidels, or men
that were ignorant of them." To this purpose he cites p
Theodoret's second Dialogue to this purpose. — Adoration
may be affirmed to be of two sorts : the first is that, which
we pay to God alone ; the other is that, which we give to
instituted signs and Divine mysteries, according to that text,
"Adore His foot-stool," which most understand of the ark
of the covenant, others of the humanity of Christ : or if they
think the adoration in both cases to be the same, we may
say that the Flesh of Christ, though a creature, is to be
adored, because of the Divinity united to it; and that the
ark was to be adored on account of the Divine Majesty,
which God had promised should be there present. Here the
Bishop seems, in some sense, to allow a Divine honour to be
paid to what is present in the Eucharist : and therefore it
should seem, that by ' the Divine invisible grace' he under
stood the Divinity of Christ; for it is observable, that he
never expressly attributes the efficacy of the Sacrament to
the Divine operation of the Holy Spirit, according to the
sentiment of the ancients, (as has been shewed at large in
the Unbloody Sacrifice ;) but further, this excellent man
had not considered, thatq Divine honour is due to the natural
Body of Christ, on account of the hypostatical union only ;
and that neither the Divinity of Christ, nor the Holy Ghost,
were ever by the ancients supposed to be hypostatically
united to the symbols in the Eucharist ; and that therefore
they could not worship them with a Divine honour. After
which manner we may also adore the Eucharist on account
of the ineffable and invisible Divine grace joined with it,
as St. Augustine speaks, not worshipping what is -seen and
passes away, but what is 'believed and understood. And it

p [p. 75.] union between them and the Divine

i See Bishop Stillingfleet's Discourse nature of Christ ; for if the only reason

of the Idolatry practised i.i the Church of joining the Human nature with the

of Rome, chap. ii. p. 113, &c. [Ed. Divine in the Peison of Christ as the

1671. "To make the elements the object of our worship, be the hyposta-

objcct of Divine worship, as they do; tical union of those natures," &c.J
they must suppose an hypostatical

316 BISHOP POYNET'S TESTIMONY.

deserves our observation, that this adoration was not paid of
old by idle spectators, but by those who received the mys
teries, and were made partakers of the grace belonging to
them; for he that adores and receives it, to him it is the
Body of Christ ; not to him that adores it, and receives it notr.
But whereas it is denied, that the wicked eat the Body of
Christ, which they must do, if the spiritual grace be joined
with the Bread; we must use a distinction. For if we con
sider the nature of the Sacrament itself, the Divine virtue
cannot be absent from the sign, inasmuch as it is a Sacra
ment and serves for this use ; but if we consider the way of
living and disposition of the receiver, that which is in itself
both life and grace, is neither the one nor the other to him ;
because the pravity of wicked men is incapable of receiving
so great goodness ; nor can it be fruitful ; nay, on the con
trary it is death and damnation to such. For as many kinds
of meats are wholesome in their own nature, but when eaten
by diseased bodies increase the evil and hasten death ; not
through their own nature, but the indisposition of him who
eats them; so it is in the Sacrament, the proper virtue
whereof is always present with it, until it ceases from its
office, although when a wicked man receives it, he can
neither receive so great goodness, nor perceive the benefit
of it. To this purpose he cites Pseudo-Cyprian De Ccena*,
whose words are very apposite, and Augustine contra Literas
Petiliani*, and De Baptismo*. Both these citations are much
to the purpose ; the latter I will translate for my English
readerx. "As Judas made room for the devil to enter into
himself, when Christ delivered to him the sop, not because
what he received was evil, but because he received it with an

r p. 72 — 76. ciat mansionem."]

s P« 77. ["Sacramenta quidem, 4 lib. 2. c. 47.
quantum in se est, sine propria esse u lib. 5.

virtute non possunt, nee ullo modo x [" Sicut enim Judas cui buccellam

Divina se absentat Majestas mysteriis. tradidit Dominus, non malum accipi-

Sed quamvis ab indignis se sumi vel endo, sed male accipiendo, locum in se

contingi Sacramenta permittant, non diabolo praebuit : sic indigne quisque

possunt tamen Spiritus esse participes, sumens Dominicum sacramentum non

quorum infidelitas vel indignitas tantae efficit, ut, quia ipse malus est, malum

sanctitudini contradicat. Ideoque aliis sit, aut, quia non ad salutem accipit,

stint haec munera, odor vitae in vitam, nihil acceperit. Corpus enim Domini

aliis odor mortis in mortem, quia om- et Sanguis Domini niliilominus erat

nino justum est, ut tanto priventur etiam illis, quibus dicebat Apostolus,

bencficio gratiae contemptores, nee in ' Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi

indignis tanta? gratiae puritas sibi fa- manducat et bibit.' "]

BISHOP POYNET'S TESTIMONY. 317

evil disposition ; so whoever unworthily receives the Sacra
ment of the Lord cannot make that an evil thing, because
he is himself evil. Nor does he receive nothing, because he
receives it not to salvation. For even to those, to whom
the Apostle says, ' He that eats and drinks unworthily, eats
and drinks damnation to himself/ to them, notwithstanding
all this, it was the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the
Lord." He cites himy to the same purpose2, and proceeds
thus; "Wherefore let it be a fixed conclusion, that Sacra
ments, while they remain Sacraments, retain their virtue,
and that there can be no separation ; for they always consist
of their parts, viz., the terrene and the celestial, the visible
and the invisible, the internal and the external; whether
they who receive them be good or bad, worthy or unworthy.
Nay, and that change of the signs, and the transition of the
elements into the internal substance, which we everywhere
meet with among the ancients, can by 110 means be con
sistent, if we separate the virtue from the sign, and would
have one taken apart from the other : I mean, so long
as the sign serves for that use, and is applied to that end,
for which it was appointed by God's Word. For if we use
it contrary to the institution of Christ, it either is no Sacra
ment at all, or it ceases to be one. Therefore they sin not
a little, who make use of the symbols of Bread and Wine,
not for the purpose which Christ intended, but consecrate
them for pomp, which is not allowed by the Word of God,
and yet put them off for Sacraments to the silly people. For
though they be prepared with due rites, and for lawful ends ;
yet, when that use and their proper function ceases, they no
longer retain the name or virtue of Sacraments. And the
ancient practice of the Church gives us a proof for this; for
when the Communion was ended, they consumed what re
mained of the Sacraments, eating it together as a common
supper, as Jerome a testifies upon the eleventh chapter of the

f p. 77. Blood in the primitive Church to have

z N. p. 36. A p. been eaten and drunk in a common

* I cannot observe any single point feast, or burnt in the fire ; but the Un-

in which the Diallacticon contradicts bloody Sacrifice shews that it was re-

the Unbloody Sacrifice (excepting in served to be sent to the sick, or for un-

the honour due to the Sacrament) but foreseen emergencies. But this is not

this, that the former asserts the re- inconsistent, as may seem at first sight ;

mainder of the Euchaiistical Body and for a great, or even the greatest part,

318

BISHOP POYXET S TESTIMONY.

first Epistle to the Corinthians ; and what remained uncon-
sumed was in part thrown into the fire, as Hesychius of

might be eaten and drunk by the com
municants, after not only they that
were present had received their share,
and enough of it to carry some away
with them, as was the practice in some
Churches ; but after those that were
absent had had their shares sent home
to them. And though the main of
what was left, after every one both pre
sent and absent had received a part,
was eaten and drunk ; yet still they
might, and did, in many places at least,
reserve a modicum for extraordinary
emergencies. And if any of the sym
bols had been so long reserved, as to
become exceedingly stale, or even nau
seous and offensive ; this most probably
was that, which they burned in the fire.
I am sensible Hesychius on Levit. viii.
asserts, " Igni tradi quaecunque re-
manere contigerit inconsumpta," that
whatever of the symbols happened to
remain unconsumed, was burnt; but
ail that remained could not both be
eaten and burnt ; nor is there any rea
son to believe that they ever burned
any but what could not be properly
consumed, that is, by manducation ;
and therefore I am apt to think, that
inconsumpta here stands for incon-
sumptibilia ; (the Greek was perhaps
ahrjirrbs, or ava\u>rbs, or some parti
ciple of that form) what was so cor
rupted with long keeping, as not to be
fit to be received with the mouth. And
this they learned from the law of
Moses, as Hesychius intimates, which
directs the sacrifices, that were grown
stale or in danger of putrefaction, to be
burnt in the fire, Levit. vii. 17 ; viii.
31, 32. But, however, a sufficient
quantity of the sacred symbols might
be sent to the absent, and some perhaps
reserved for contingencies, before the
rest was cast into the fire. And it is
probable, that not only in the Church
of Jerusalem, but in others, the cor
rupted symbols were so disposed of.
For how could Sacraments, when unfit
for oral manducation, be more decently
consumed, especially when the old law
required even the most holy things to
be put into the fire, when they were
grown offensive to the taste ? And
while the Sacrament was reserved in
the Church only for proper uses, as for
dying penitents, and such like acci
dents, not for superstition, as now in
the Church of Rome ; the nature of it

was not at all altered by being so re
served, even according to Bishop Poy-
net's argument. But Hesychius has
in the same place some words that are
a peremptory declaration against the
doctrine of transubstantiation ; for
whereas in the eighth of Levit. ver. 31,
Moses and his sons are commanded to
eat the bread with the flesh ; he says
this was done, " ut intelligeremus nos
illud ab eo mysterium dici, quod simul
panis et Caro est," that we might
understand that mystery to be here
meant by him (Moses), which is at the
same time both bread and Flesh ; bread
in substance, Flesh in mystery. And
though I will not say, that when any
considerable quantity of the sacred
symbols remained after celebration, and
after provision was made for occasional
uses, the clergy and people did nowhere
eat and drink it ; yet I take leave to
observe, that the words of St. Jerome,
or rather of Pelagius, or some other
uncertain writer, whose works are com
monly published among those of St.
Jerome, to which Bishop Poynet here
refers us, do not at all prove the regu
lar practice of the Church, either in
that age or any other. For the author
was commenting on the first Epistle of
St. Paul to the Corinthians, and de
scribing the disorderly method of the
people there in celebrating the Eucha
rist. I will transcribe the whole pas
sage in the original Latin, that the
reader may be satisfied that I do truly
represent the case; "'1 Cor. xi. 18.
Convenientibus ergo vobis in unum,
jam non est Dominicam,' &c.] Jam
non est Dominica, sed humana ; quando
unusquisque tanquam ccenam propiiam
solus invadit : et alii qui non obtulerit,
non impertit : ita ut magis propter
saturitatem, quam propter mysterium
videamini convenire. Caeterum Do
minica Coena omnibus debet esse com-
munis : quia Hie omnibus discipulis
suis qui aderant, aequaliter tradidit
Sacramenta. Ccena autem ideo dicitur,
quia Dominus in Coena tradidit Sacra
menta. Item hoc ideo dicit: quia in
Ecclesia convenientes, oblationes suas
separatim offerebant: et post com-
munionem, quaecunque eis de Sacri-
ficiis superfuissent, illic in Ecclesia
communem ccenam comedentes, pa-
riter consumebant." — [Tom. v. p. 998.
Ed. Ben.] In English, "Now this is

BISHOP POYNET S TESTIMONY.

319

Jerusalem teaches. Neither of which could have been rightly
done, unless they had ceased to be Sacraments." He farther
observes, that this doctrine of the Eucharist is not perplexed
and difficult, but as clear and perspicuous as the nature of
a mystery will permit it to be. No words of Scripture, no
sayings of the Fathers contradict it ; but all do harmoniously
agree together. There are some, who cannot hear of the
Sacraments being a sign or figure : they have here the Verity
or thing itself acknowledged. They will have the substance
of the Body; they see we affirm the substance to be pre
sent, and our communion with Christ naturally and substan
tially explained. We would not fall out about the words,
though barbarous and unnecessary, if they meant such a
change of substance as is made in a man regenerated by
Baptism, We do not so much avoid the words, though some
account is to be made of them, but we demand that signi
fication which the Fathers teach us. We only reject the
notion of eating flesh, which the Fathers also reject as im
pious, as repugnant to Scripture and the true faith1'.

not the Supper of the Lord, but of
man, when every one seizes it as his
own supper, and imparts nothing to
him, who brought no offering ; so that
you seem to meet together to fill the
belly, rather than for the sake of the
mystery. Farther, the Lord's Supper
ought to be common to all, because He
equally delivered the Sacraments to all
His disciples that were present. And
it is called a Supper on this account,
because the Lord delivered the Sacra
ments at Supper. And for this reason
he says this; because when they met
in the Church, they offered their obla
tions separately ; and after the Com
munion, they consumed all that re
mained of the Sacrifices there in the
Church, by eating together a common
Supper." I cannot believe that the
author in these words describes the
usual commendable practice of Chris
tians in that age wherein he wrote ; or
that he intended to propose the irregu
larities of the Corinthians to the imita
tion of posterity ; but that he performs
the part of an interpreter or historian,
by nakedly relating the fact, which he
supposed to be the occasion of the dis
orders committed in the Church of
Corinth.

Lest my reader should be too free in
condemning this most learned man, for

giving too much countenance to the
Romish doctrine of the Real Presence,
he may observe that the Waldenses,
or (as the Reverend Mr. Dorrington
says) the Bohemians, did publicly pro
fess, that the Bread was not only the
spiritual and blessed or consecrated,
but the natural Body of Christ ; they
complain that their adversaries were
not willing to believe them in this
point, and therefore they repeat it
again with more vehemence (to free
themselves from all suspicion), that
after the words of consecration pro
nounced by the Priest, the Bread is the
very natural Body of Christ taken of
the Virgin Mary. See their Excusatio
in Fascicul. Rerum, vol. i. p. 181.
[" De Corpore et Sanguine Christi sic
credimus, quod postverbum per Sacer-
dotem recte consecratum quod statim
panis est Corpus Christi verum natu-
rale, sumptum ex Maria Virgine,"]
And yet in this same Apology they
directly deny transsubstantiation and
the worship of the Host ; nay, they
were at that time under persecution,
because they could not believe the one
nor practise the other. And indeed to
say that the Eucharistical Bread is the
natural Body of Christ, is to suppose
that the material Bread still remains.
b p. 76. 81.

320 BISHOP POYNET'S TESTIMONY.

He concludes by praying to God, that He would remove
from the minds of Pastors Doctors and Ministers of the
Church the affectation of dispute and dominion, and compose
their minds to peace and brotherly love ; that they may not
abuse this peculiar bond of charity (the Sacrament) delivered
by Christ Himself to His Church, as a means of fomenting
strife and faction, &c.

ANIMADVERSIONS

ON A BOOK WRITTEN BY THE REVEREND DR. THOMAS WISEa, ENTITLED,

"THE CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c.," WHICH HE PUB
LISHED CHIEFLY IN ANSWER TO A PRINTED LETTER, CALLED, "A
SEASONABLE APOLOGY IN BEHALF OF THE REVEREND DR. GEORGE
HICKES, &C.," WHICH LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON OCCASION OF A SERMON
PREACHED BY DR. WISE, AT A VISITATION AT CANTERBURY, JUNE 1,
1710, IN WHICH THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST WAS OPPOSED,
WHICH SERMON THE DOCTOR PRINTED.

THIS gentleman lias given the world a specimen of a very
singular disposition towards me ; for he has once and again
voted for me at the election of Proctors for this Diocese, and
yet both preached and written against me. His favours I
do hereby acknowledge ; but I think I could not put a worse
construction upon them than to suppose that he intended
these votes as spells, to tie my hands and charm me out of
my natural right of self-defence. Since his first voting for
me, he has published many reflections in his " Christian Eu
charist," upon a book which was then generally known to be
mine, I mean, the " Propitiatory Oblation." By this he has
made it evident, that notwithstanding his appearance of
friendliness he thinks himself at liberty to attack me from
the press or pulpit, and that therefore I am equally at
liberty to repel him.

Whatever has any appearance of strength either in his
Book or Sermon, and which any other man of middling judg
ment would have said upon the same occasion, is, I think,
fully answered in the foregoing book ; though I have rarely
there mentioned his name or cited his words at large ; not
only because this would have made the volume swell without
any just reason, but because I do not think that the Doctor

a [The Editor has still to regret his are not found in the Bodleian or the
having been unable to meet with a copy British Museum.]
of this and the following Tract ; they

322 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

has always given his citations, that are to the purpose, their
full force, nor his arguments their true edge. And as for
such citations as are of very small weight on his own side of
the question, and such arguings as are peculiar to the Doctor,
I have reserved them to be considered by themselves here at
the end of the book, that so my reader might not, in the
perusal of the " Unbloody Sacrifice," be interrupted with
matters, which are oftentimes not very pertinent to the
subject. But, after all, one half of the book must for ever
remain unanswered ; I mean his high airs and all those
sallies of an ill-governed fancy, with which his book abounds ;
in which I have no inclination to pursue him, and which I
think nothing can excuse in a Divine, when he is treating of
the Mysteries of religion, the Arcana Eegni, which the very
Angels desire to look into. Nor have I either leisure or
emulation to strip him of those plumes he spreads, those
ample vindications and encomiums of himself, with which his
book is filled. I am very far from being an enemy to the
Doctor or a detractor from his merits ; yet I cannot at the
same time dissemble my resentments and indignation at his
awkward un-Doctor-ly way of treating his argument and his
antagonist.

As for the sermon, there is nothing in it with which I shall
detain my reader, but a marginal note, p. 15, where he
speaks of a distinction made by St. Ignatius, "of three several
parts or acts in the Holy Eucharist, namely, 1. Trpoa-^opa,
'the bare offering Bread and Wine;' 2. Ovaia, ( the mystical
commemoration of Christ's Body and Blood/ 3. $o%r), fa
receiving and participation of the same/" And could the
Doctor believe, that an Apostolical man, a disciple of St.
John, did really distinguish the sacred solemnity into these
three parts, and yet remain unconvinced that the Eucharist
was a Sacrifice? Was it possible for him to conceive, that
the Holy Martyr affirmed that there was both an Oblation
and a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, and yet not feel the force of
such words? Can he in his own conscience think that he
has answered this allegation, by saying, that " the Bread and
Wine are symbols of Christ's real Sacrifice ?" For let us give
this for granted ; and may not symbols be really offered, and,
by being offered, become a real Sacrifice ? Were not all the

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 323

Levitical sacrifices intended by God, as types of Christ's
Body ? and yet will he dispute, whether they were sacrifices
or not ? Is there any possible answer to be made to so clear
a proof? When he owns, "the words are the most signi
ficative of a real Sacrifice," could he be blind in such a sun
shine ? I desire the reader to take a measure of the Doctor's
judgment from this single passage ; and he will easily discern,
that there is something in him that can turn the scale against
the most weighty evidence. But what is yet more strange,
these words are not in the genuine Epistle of St. Ignatius to
the Smyrnaians, but in the interpolated only. And I cannot
but admire to see a gentleman of the Doctor's elevation refer
us to the authority of a spurious writer directly and un
questionably for the doctrine of the Sacrifice, without taking
any notice or giving the least hint that it is not genuine ; it
is such an authority as wants nothing to render it perfectly
unanswerable but only this, that the words to which he refers
are not the words of the real Ignatius, as our Doctor took
them to be. I can heartily forgive the Doctor a great many
such mistakes ; but, sure, when he reflects on it, he will never
be able to forgive himself. He in vain cites Mr. Mede and
Dr. Hickes to patronize him in this foul error. Mr. Mede's
Discourses on this subject were written before the Medicean
copy of Ignatius's Epistles was published by Vossius ; and
Dr. Hickes, in the place referred to, says not one word of
Ignatius or his Epistles.

The capital argument used by the Doctor to prove the
Eucharist no Sacrifice is this, that it is called the Body and
Blood of Christ as well as a Sacrifice ; and if we do not be
lieve it to be the real Body and Blood, why should we be
lieve it to be a real Sacrifice? This he mentions in the
fifteenth page of his Sermon; and with this he begins his
arguings in his book. But, if nothing can be a real Sacrifice
but the real Body of Christ, this annuls not only the Sacri
fice of the Eucharist, but all other sacrifices, except that which
was offered by Christ Jesus in person ; and this makes clear
work indeed: and though the Scriptures and the ancients
often call the Eucharist the Body and Blood, yet they give
us to understand too, that the Bread and Wine remains.
Nay, the Fathers often call the Bread and Wine, the symbols,

Y 2

324 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

types, and figures, of the natural Body and Blood, as has
been plentifully proved. And when the Doctor can shew
that any of the ancients, when they call the Eucharist a
Sacrifice, do by any additional words give us to understand
that they mean not a proper Sacrifice (as they evidently tell
us they mean not the natural Body and Blood), then we
should own that this argument were plausible. The places
cited from St. Chrysostom and others, who affirm it only to
be a Memorial or Commemoration, have been particularly
considered in the foregoing book ; and it has been shewed,
that a commemorative sacrifice may have all the properties
of a real sacrifice, and that they all meet together in the
Eucharist. And the Doctor would have saved me this reflec
tion, if he had pleased to remember that the Eucharist is
called a Sacrifice by the ancients, not only because it repre
sents a Sacrifice, but because it is actually offered ; and that
in the first Eucharist Christ "gave His Body" to God by
the symbols of Bread and Wine.

P. 18, 19. That the Eucharistical Oblations, and, among
these, Bread and Wine, were in the primitive Church ' ' offered
by the eternal law of nature at the Holy Table, called also
an Altar," is a direct contradiction to his own cause ; for it
supposes Oblations to be a law of nature, and therefore obli
gatory in all times and places. My Lord B. of N. [Bishop of
Norwich] censures me for saying, that Oblation of Bread and
Wine is to be made by the law of the Church of England ;
but, if it be required by the law of nature, then I hope none
will suppose that such Oblations are not to be made in our
Church, except they are disposed to make the laws of nature
and the Church repugnant to each other. Here I shall leave
him to the correction of his own friends.

P. 19. He tells us the manner of making these Oblations
was "with Holy Eucharists, and blessings, and saying of
Grace ; — first by the people in general then by the adminis
tering Priest." Saying of Grace ? Is this the language of a
Doctor of Divinity ? I should rather call it the cant of the
Bights-men and Grecians, the Deists and scoffers. The latter
indeed apply this phrase to the most solemn consecration ;
our Doctor here means it of the supposed previous devotions,
and therefore is one step behind them. If the Doctor could

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 325

help us to the sight of one of those prayers or c Graces/ as he
chooses to speak, which was said, " first by the people in gene
ral" over the Oblations ; or produce any proof, that any such
prayer was made by them, distinct from what was pronounced
by the Priest ; I dare say, all antiquarians would acknowledge
it a great rarity : and I will engage, that the gentlemen just
now mentioned, the Rights-men and Deists, will in a very
special manner express their obligations to him; but until
this be done, I must believe it an invention of his own, and
a very sorry one too. For certainly the people in the primi
tive Church were not to eat and drink the oblations they
brought, excepting only that small portion, that was singled
out to be consecrated into the Eucharistical Body and Blood.
I think it is allowed, that the Trepio-aev/jiaTa, mentioned in
the eighth book of the Constitutions, were the Bread and Wine
offered by the people, remaining over and above what was
taken out and consecrated for the Eucharistical Body and
Blood. These are, by that Constitution, directed to be divided
by determined proportions between the Bishop, Clergy, and
Deaconesses ; the people had no share of them. If the people
in the Church of Alexandria were allowed to partake of the
Perisseumata, yet this must be allowed to have been pecu
liar to themb. And no oblations but those of Bread and
Wine were necessarily and perpetually offered on the Altar.
Now to make the people say grace over those offerings which
were to be eaten by others, was a most incongruous fancy.
Once a year indeed, grapes and ears of corn were permitted
by the Apostolical Canon to be offered ; and these were wholly
or chiefly intended to be eaten by those who brought them,
if we may believe the Scholiasts; but these offerings were no
part of the Eucharist, properly. so called. I know some would
persuade us, that the Love-feasts were furnished out of the
remainder of the Altar-oblations ; but this is mere supposi
tion, and may be confuted out of the Constitution now men
tioned, by which the Perisseumata are ordered to be shared
out between the Bishop and Clergy.

P. 20. He argues (if I may so say) again from the inter
polation of St. Ignatius.

Ibid. As to the passage from St. Cyprian, which the Doctor

0 See Can. 7. Thcophil. Alexandr.

326 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

here cites, I have particularly considered it, Chap. II. Sect. 1.
of the foregoing book. He observes, that St. Augustine calls
the Eucharist " the Sacrament of memorial ;" and do we deny
it this title ? But the Doctor may see that he calls it a Sacri
fice0, and not a Sacrament ; would the Doctor from thence
argue, that he did not believe it to be a Sacrament ?

P. 22, 23. He labours to prove that gifts and sacrifices
are distinct things ; but it is very certain, that the ancients
did not nicely observe this distinction. The lay-oblations
were sometimes called ' Sacrifices d;' and the consecrated sym
bols are sometimes called ' Gifts6/ Nay, the Levitical sacri
fices, both as to those portions which were offered to God
and those which were to be eaten by the priests, are by the
LXX called B&pa Qeov, Lev. xxi. 6, 8, 21, 22; for these In
terpreters, by ' the Bread5 or Food ' of God,' understood the
holy penman to mean, whatever was in especial manner given
or offered on the altar to God.

P. 24. He argues thus ; " If the oblations were a true
Sacrifice, there were two other proper material Sacrifices in
the Eucharist, namely, that part of the oblations which sup
plied the Holy Supper, and the other remaining part from
which it was taken." This is very arch indeed, and a clear
proof, that the Doctor has not forgot the doctrine of sophisms.
Thus the Doctor's book is three books; for the Christian
Eucharist, which contains the whole volume, is one, the
Reply to the Apology is a second, and the Reply to the
Letter for Transubstantiation a third. The Bread and "Wine,
consecrated and offered as the representative Body and
Blood, are strictly speaking the only Sacrifice : it might as
rationally be said, that what of the sin-offering and peace-
offering remained after the oblation was a distinct sacrifice,
as that the remaining part of the Eucharistical Bread and
Wine are so.

Ibid. He mistakes Tertullian's Agape for the Eucharist.
The worship of Christians had been spoken of in the fore
going part of the Apology; here he speaks of the Christian
Supper, and saysf, "When we are at the charge of an enter-

c a. p. 31. f. p. 31. H. and I. p. 36. Ap. f ["Coena nostra de nomine ratio-

d See Chap. II. Sect. 4. nem sui ostendit. Id vocatur quod di»

e See Liturg. Clem. d. p. 54. Ap. lectio penes Gra;cos. Quantiscnnque

Lituig. S. Jacobi, i. b. 55. Ap. sumptibus constet ; lucrum est pie-

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 327

tainment, it is to refresh the bowels of the needy; you
(heathen,) gorge the parasites — we feed the hungry, because
we know God takes a peculiar delight in seeing us do it.
I leave you from hence to guess at the rest of our discipline
in matters of pure religion," &c.; these are the words of the
most ingenious Mr. B-eeves's translation, and cannot be ap
plied to the Eucharist.

P. 25. He musters up the old argument against the Sacri
fice, viz., that Jews and heathens told the Christians, that
they had neither sacrifices nor altars ; " real" and " material"
are his own additions ; " and I do not find," says he, " that
the ancients ever directly answered, that they had any ; but
only that, in conformity a little to the Jews and heathens,
they had what might go by the name of sacrifices and altars."
Now I challenge him to produce any single Father that ever
gave the least occasion for this imputation. I have said
enough as to this particular in the present treatise, and the
Propitiatory Oblation, p. 78, 79. But, in truth, the Doctor
seems to have taken Julian the Apostate for an ancient
Father; for he says something more like what the Doctor
imputes to them than any thing that was ever said by them.
You have it in the Doctor's own translation in the next page,
viz., "You Christians have found out a new sacrifice : — why
do you not offer sacrifice?" The primitive Fathers were so
far from humouring the Jews or heathens, in telling them
that they had something that might go by the name of
sacrifice, that they seldom spake apertly to them of any
sacrifice they had. Justin Martyr is the only instance of
doing this, that I have ever met with ; but they spake of a
sacrifice freely and in words at length to their own people,
who were the only persons concerned to know it. He cites
Cyril of Alexandria for extolling the internal sacrifices of
the mind ; we can readily subscribe to all that Cyril is here
cited for. He lays some stress upon Cyril's using the word
1, as if he was ignorant that the ancients denied the

tatis nomine facere sumptum. Siqui- Deum major est contemplatio medio-

dem inopes quosque refrigeiio isto ju- crium. Si honesta causa est convivii,

vainus, non qua penes vos parasiti reliquum orclinem discipline estimate

affectant ad gloriam famtilandae liber- qui sit, de religionisofficio." — Apolog.,

tatis sub auctoraniento vcntris inter p. 32. Ed. Par. 1664.]
contumelias saginandi ; sed qua penes

328 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

Oblation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be a cor
poreal oblation.

P. 28. Here he speaks of " the contention of great wits" in
the citation of a learned modern, and would have us believe,
that "much light of truth is drawn out from the striking of
two flints one against another." The reader will easily guess
whom he meant by one of these flints ; and he is willing to
let his adversary be the other rather than lose the advan
tage of so apt a comparison.

P. 29. Here he introduces a very learned man saying
that St. Cyril of Alexandria allows " no sacrifice properly so
called, whether bloody or unbloody, among Christians, saving
that of the Cross." My reader will rather believe St. Cyril
himself, whose authority for the Sacrifice I have produced in
the foregoing book, than either the Doctor or his learned
man ; especially because they produce no such words from
St. Cyril as do at all countenance this notion.

P. 30. He owns, the Fathers not only called the Bread
and Wine a Sacrifice, but a ' true' and ' propitiatory' Sacri
fice ; but denies that they thought them so in themselves.
If he means, that the Eucharistical Sacrifice offered by us is
not propitiatory, if considered abstractedly from the Macta-
tion on the Cross, we readily confess it. Nay, we say that
no sacrifice but that of Christ Jesus was propitiatory, if by
' propitiatory ' be meant, fin itself satisfactory/ but, instead
of proving that it is not propitiatory (in virtue of the prin
cipal Sacrifice), he is content to say that "it is not a repre
sentative Sacrifice ;" which is what he was to have proved.

P. 31. Here he would have it thought, that "a repre
sentative commemorative Sacrifice cannot be a real one,"
but he gives us no reason why we should think as he does ;
and, having observed that St. Chrysostom tells us, " we are to
do this in remembrance of what Christ once did," and added
"on the Cross," (which is the Doctor's own comment,) he
says, " So must this Father be understood, when saying,
that Christ has changed the sacrifice and commanded us to
offer Himself instead of the sacrifices of brute creatures;"
and immediately goes on, " wherefore I tell you, though the
ancients called the Bread and Wine a real Sacrifice, yet can
you not from hence infer it to be indeed one." This I give

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 329

my reader as a specimen of the Doctor's arguing and in
ferring. I suppose the strength of the argument lies in
those words, ' I tell you ;' for if it had not been for those
words, I should have concluded that St. Chrysostom asserted
a real Sacrifice in the words last mentioned ; and so I be
lieve will my reader think that the Doctor ought to have
done; for nothing is more usual with the ancients than by
the Sacrifice of Christ to mean the Sacrifice of His Eucha-
ristical Body and Blood.

P. 32. To shew that the Fathers spake figuratively, when
they called the Eucharist " a Sacrifice, though not when they
called it a Sacrament," he argues, that if they had, " there
would have been sign upon sign, figure upon figure;" but
what he means by it, he does not tell us. It is the Sacra
ment, which, we assert, is offered by a real act of oblation ;
and how this can add sign to sign, I conceive not, except he
could prove that the act of oblation was only figurative and
not real. To support this, he adds, " Bread and Wine did not
pass under the name of a Sacrifice, until made a Sacrament ;"
which is neither true, nor, if it were true, would it at all help
his cause : to mend the matter, he adds these words, " as
St. Ignatius remarks." Now where did St. Ignatius ever
make this remark? He directs us in the margin to his
Epistle to the Smyrna3ans, and therefore undoubtedly means
the interpolated words mentioned twice before in his Sermon,
p. 15, in his Book, p. 20; and yet there is no mention of a
Sacrament. The words, which he is so very fond of, are
these, " Without a Bishop it is not lawful to offer or to
present a Sacrifice, or to make a distribution of it," as Dr. W.
supposes; but, as Primate Ussher more probably says, "to
make a love-feast." If the reader can see any thing like a
proof on Dr. W.'s side, it is more than I can do ; though I
can easily discern, that they are full of proof against him.

P. 33. He observes, Dr. Hickes puts the word ' Sacrifice'
before ' Sacrament;' and from thence argues, that he reckons
the Eucharist a Sacrifice on account of the previous obla
tion; and from thence concludes Dr. Hickes to be "incon
sistent with himself." But why ? Because Dr. W. had told
us before, that " as St. Ignatius remarked," so did Dr. Hickes
too, and indeed both alike, that " the Bread and Wine did

330 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

not pass under the name of Sacrifice, until made a Sacra
ment. Dr. Hickes indeed cites a common saying, Dona
sunt qua Deo donantur, Sacriftcia, qua cum orationibus con-
seer antur, in the place here referred to; but will Dr. W.
infer, that any thing is no sacrifice because it is a gift ; or
that it ceases to be a gift, when it becomes a sacrifice? It is
further owned, that Dr. Hickes asserts, that, by the Liturgy
of K. Edward VI., " the Holy Gifts are presented to God on
the Altar; then consecrated, by prayer, for the Eucharist."
And if the Doctor thought that what had been offered on
an Altar might properly be styled a Sacrifice, who can blame
him or disprove him ? But, after all, suppose the Doctor had
never so flatly asserted, that Bread and Wine are a Sacra
ment before they are a Sacrifice, where and how does he
contradict this ? Why, Dr. W. tells us, that he says, " Sacri
fice and Sacrament;" to which I will only say, that if I
should make a collection of Dr. W/s inconsistencies, no better
grounded than this which he charges on Dr. Hickes, and
produce all the Hystera-protera in his Book and Sermon, and
draw inferences from them, as he does in this place, I will
be bound to prove, that he holds heresies and heterodoxies,
which he never yet heard or thought of; but there is no
occasion for him that writes against Dr. W. to hunt for such
small game as this.

He in the same place cites St. Ambrose or rather Hilary the
Deacon, for saying, Una est h&c Hostia, non multce ; which,
he falsely says, is to be understood of "the Sacrifice of the
Cross, and no more." It was meant of the Grand Sacrifice,
faithfully and authoritatively represented in the Eucharist ;
and this is indeed " the vote of all Antiquity," who speak of
the Eucharist, in all times and places, as One Bread and One
Sacrifice. In this and the next page he sides with the Papists
for their Sacrifice of Transubstantiation against Dr. Hickes's
and the Apologist's Sacrifice of Bread and Wine; and expressly
asserts that they " talk more absurdly than even the Roman
ists," and cites Bellarmine,Maldonatus, and Salmeron, against
a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine ; and yet has the face to com
plain of his adversary for " leading him a dance to downright
Transubstantiation." Now the reader is judge, which of the
two are most inclined to the Romish Sacrifice, the Apologist,

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 331

who asserts the opinion of Dr. Hickes, (who is expressly for
a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine,) or Dr. W., who in this respect
sides with the Jesuits against him. And here I cannot but
reflect on the disingenuous proceedings of Dr. W., who has
sprinkled his whole book with malicious insinuations of Dr.
Hickes's inclinations to Popery, and of his too favourable
opinion of Transubstantiation ; and yet, here and in other
places, thinks he has great advantage of him for asserting a
Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, and declares this to be more
absurd than Transubstantiation. They, who indulge them
selves in the most unchristian and diabolical practice of
accusing their brethren of a crime so very black and flagrant,
should take special care so to contrive their calumnies, that
they may at least be consistent and hang together ; for those
slanders, that confute themselves (which is the present case),
do at once absolve the party accused, and convict the delator
of forgery and nonsense both in one. We know the devil
to be the common father of lies, especially such as are mali
cious ; but, in the case now before us, I can see none of the
craft or subtlety of the old serpent ; the Doctor, in contriving
this calumny, was left, I charitably believe, to his own natural
invention ; I cannot say, the Doctor has the innocence of the
dove, nor yet can I allow him the cunning of the serpent;
he abounds with gall, but he wants the sting. He, that
would make a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine more absurd than
the Sacrifice of Transubstantiation, and would in the same
breath condemn his adversary for a Papist for asserting the
former and denying the latter, must give his reader leave to
call in question his judgment, his understanding, and even
his senses ; and I am very sure I am not transported beyond
the bounds of strict truth in what I now say. No Protestant
can believe, that to assert the Eucharist to be Bread and
Wine has any manner of absurdity in it; and, if Bread and
Wine be there, there can be no absurdity in offering them
to God, even though we were not obliged to offer them;
except you will say, that whatever is not commanded is
absurd. However, it is not so absurd to offer Bread and Wine,
which we are sure are there, as to suppose (contrary to com
mon sense) that the substance of the Body and Blood are
there, and to pretend to offer them as such ; and he, whose

332 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

understanding and senses cannot inform and convince him
of this, must be allowed to be very defective in both, and
very open to the artifices of the Jesuits; and I should not
at all wonder to see such a man converted to Popery, espe
cially if he were turned out of his preferment in the Church
of England and put to shifts to get his daily bread, which
has been the case of the Non-jurors ; and therefore I cannot
but take this opportunity of declaring, that I look on them
to be the men that have given the greatest proof of their
obstinate aversion to Popery, of any in the whole kingdom.
Dr. W. and I do not know what it is for Clergymen to be
denied a subsistence in the Church, and to be treated as
criminals for acting according to conscience, and to see others
rewarded with preferment for insulting and abusing us ; and
they who, notwithstanding this hard usage, are firm to the
Church, and deaf to the arguments and invitations of the
Papists, nay, zealous against their errors and forward to
oppose them, shew themselves to be Christians and Protes
tants in earnest ; and on this account should be regarded as
some of our truest and fastest friends ; and he, who is now the
most conspicuous among them and who has most remarkably
distinguished himself in these particulars, is one of the last of
all men living, that a Doctor of Divinity should have singled
out, on whom to disgorge his choler and slander. I will not say,
that they have been guilty of no excesses ; even the patience
of Job did not preserve him from some intemperate words ;
but I cannot but believe them truer friends to Religion than
those who have with the greatest violence opposed them, and
better subjects to the Queen than those Deists and fanatics
that have taken the oaths.

P. 44. Here he supposes ' mystical' to be opposed to freal/
but without any grounds. The Eucharist is a real feast, and
yet a mystical one ; and why not a real though mystical
Sacrifice, as well as a real and mystical feast ?

P. 45. He would not have us think Mr. Mede so much our
friend, as we imagine ; because he says " the Eucharist is
nothing but the Sacrifice of Christ again and again comme
morated," as if we said otherwise : then he cites the passage
in Irenseus, which the reader may see in the Appendix g, which

8 e. p. 1. Ap.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 333

is as directly for the Sacrifice, as anything the Doctor is able
to say can be against it ; and presently cries out, " Will ye
after all this assert the Lord's Supper to be a true Sacrifice ?"
He had just before cited the words of Chrysostom, mentioned
p. 31 ; so little is he capable of discerning between his friends
and foes.

P. 46. He supposes, we give up the words 'true' and ' proper'
Sacrifice, when we call the Eucharist an Oblation ; and yet
he is never pleased to inform us, wherein the one does essen
tially differ from the other. The author of the Propitiatory
Oblation has sufficiently explained himself in that treatise,
and this ; and as to the Doctor's comment upon it, (as he calls
it,) he leaves it to the reader's judgment : yet I cannot but
desire the reader to observe, how far I gave up the word
' Sacrifice' in the book cited by the Doctor; which he will
easily apprehend by the following words, viz., "I rather
choose to use the phrase of a Propitiatory Oblation than the
word Sacrifice ; because the word Sacrifice does, for the most
part and in common acceptation, signify ' to slay in order to
offer up.' I know that it is sometimes otherwise understood,
and that it is often applied by the ancients to the Oblation
in the Eucharist — and therefore I lay aside the word at
present, rather that the reader may better understand me,
than that I shall uncharitably misunderstand others, that
are disposed still to make use of ith."

P. 54. His words to the gentleman, against whom he
writes, in this place are very remarkable, viz., "It is the
general opinion, that I have here done you too much honour by
standing to parley with you thus long." I was much startled
at this passage ; because it supposes, that he knew what the
" general opinion" of men was concerning his present per
formance, before he had finished one fourth part of it. I was
more surprised yet, when I met with those words, (p. 89,) viz.,
" The printer, as he has been the last, so he has always been
the first, that has so much as seen what I have hitherto
done, and do now publish." These two passages I could not
for a while look upon, as otherwise than a flat contradiction .
the first supposes, that the generality knew how long he had
been parleying with his adversary, and how much honour he

h Prop. Oblat., pp. 8, 9.

334 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

had done him in his present writings ; but the latter declares
it to have been a secret to all, till it came to the press. It
concerned me much to understand my author's phrase and
way of expression; and at last I apprehend I have found
the key to it. The Doctor, you are to understand, takes it
for granted, that whatever he wots or conceives must be " the
general opinion ;" which is a very modest and acute way of
judging, and lets us into his meaning, when he says of his
sermon, that " it met with a general approbation1." In both
cases you are to conceive that he summoned a council of all
his faculties, and all these did unanimously give their suffrage
in favour of their master and his performances. For the
future, I shall perfectly well understand the Doctor, when
he speaks of " the general opinion" and of " a general appro
bation."

P. 121. "Eucharist," he says, "in the abstract, is applied
to the Lord's Supper ;" and says, " It is purely thanksgiving,
prayer, and praise, — spiritual, mental, and rational;" in a
word, one of George Foxe's sacrifices ; and yet, p. 165, he
cites Origen for saying, " the Bread, called the Eucharist ;"
and even in this page he says, "The Sacrifice of Christ is
represented in Bread and Wine," and yet denies it to be a
"material Sacrifice, except the extremes of a contradiction
can be reconciled." I refer him to Chap. II. Sect. 1. of the
foregoing treatise.

P. 131. I overlook his glozing addresses to himself, and to
the very great man (whom I honour), as the very Pudenda
of his book.

P. 132, &c. He tells us, " Where the Bishop is, there is no
such thing as party," and refers to St. Ignatius for a proof of
it. And I own this is true of a Bishop sound in the Faith and
true to his character, of an Ignatian Bishop, of a Bishop that
does not abandon his Altar ; for the Martyr's rule is, " One
Bishop, One Altar;" upon this condition I join issue with him.

P. 158. lie supposes that I am against the notion of a
real Altar, because I call it a " Communion -Table," in the
" Propitiatory Oblation ;" as if, when I call a matt a Minister
or Clergyman, I deny him to be a real Priest.

P. 160. To prove that the word 'Offer' does not signify

' See Advertisement before the Sermon.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 335

strictly ' to sacrifice/ he produces these words of St. Cyprian,
Sacrificia pro Us semper offerimus, quoties Martyrwn pas-
siones celebramus* ; he might well be afraid to give them in
English, for then even his female readers would have seen
that they prove the direct contrary. He asks his adversary,
"how he would construe these words." I answer for him,
that they are capable of no other just rendition but this,
" We always offer Sacrifices for them, as often as we celebrate
the passions of the Martyrs ;" by them meaning several great
men, before mentioned by St. Cyprian. He introduces this
citation with the following words, (speaking to his adversary),
" Sir, you are a strange man at extorting ; you will get out
of me a great deal of what I intended to have reserved, if
ever I do myself the honour to hold a personal conference
with Dr. Hickes." This it seems was some of that light,
which he speaks of before, that was to have been " drawn" (as
he expresses it) from this flinty wit, when it came to a colli
sion. If this were one of the chief of those rarities, which he
kept in pet to for a personal congress, Dr. Hickes would have
obtained a very cheap victory ; for it is plain, he has an ad
versary that at every turn stabs himself with his own sword.
He cites Rigaltius on these words of St. Cyprian, but to what
purpose I cannot see; for Rigaltius does not say that of-
ferre Sacrificium does not signify "to offer Sacrifice," and
yet nothing less than this can do the Doctor any service.

Ibid. To prove that 'to offer Sacrifice/ in the language of
the Christian Church, is not to be taken in a proper sense,
" What," says he, " if it had been, as in the first and second
Canons of Ancyra, AICLKOVOVS dvcravras, who yet, even ac
cording to you, had no authority (strictly speaking) to offer
Sacrifice ?" The words are dark ; but this is plain, that he
supposes by the ' Sacrificing Deacons ' is meant, ( Deacons
celebrating the Eucharist/ Now in the first of these Canons
there is not one word of Deacons ; but it forbids Priests, who
had sacrificed to idols in the persecution, to make the Chris
tian Oblation, or to preach; the first clause of the second
Canon is this, Aiaicovovs OJULOICOS Ovo-avras, pera £e ravra
ava7ra\ai(TavTOLS TTJV /JLGV d\\7]v TI^LTIV e^etz', TreiravaOai Se
avrovs irdaTjf rfjs i€parucf}3 \et,rovpy las TTJS re rov aprov rj
k Ep. 34. p. 47. Ed. Paris. 1726.

336 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

TTorr^pLov avafyzpeiv, rj Kr]pv<j<Teiv. "That, in like manner,
Deacons, that have sacrificed but have afterwards entered
the conflict, do cease from all attendance on the Priest and
from distributing the Bread and Cup, but retain all other
honour." It is exceeding strange, that the Doctor could not
distinguish between offering Christian and heathen sacrifice ;
especially since Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, are so clear
and unanimous in the point; and the first Canon explains
the second. It is true, the word, which I here render ' dis
tribute/ may in strictness be turned ' offer / and there maybe
an instance or two in Latin Antiquity, where the Bread or
Cup are said to be offered to the people : but this way of
speaking is so very rare, that nothing can be built upon it ;
and, since we are sure that, when it is so used, it imports
no more than 'giving' or ' distributing/ I have rendered
it accordingly. Dr. Wise here produces 110 proof of it,
but only his ALCLKOVOVS Ovo-avTas, and a reference to the
Latin Translation of the eighty Nicene Canons from the
Arabic; which are of no authority, and the Translation
so obscure, and the sense so uncertain, that nothing can
safely be inferred from it. The words stand thus, Publics
autem Sacrificium offer ant [Monachi~\ in ejusmodi locis diebus
festis — Quia, ubi est Altar e, ibi oportet celebrare festos diesf
convenire Diaconos, et rite offerre Sacrificium, et adimplere cere-
monias, &c. which I should thus render, " Let [the Monks]
publicly offer the Sacrifice in such places on the festivals — for,
where there is an Altar, there it is fit to celebrate the festivals,
to convene the Deacons, to offer the Sacrifice with proper
rites, and to consummate the ceremonies." The Doctor says,
"Deacons are said by the ancients, rite offerre Sacrificium;33
and in his margin refers to these Arabic Canons, in the second
tome of Labbe's Councils, p. 351, for the proof of it. I find
nothing like it in p. 35 1 ; but in p. 352 are the words "above
produced. The forgers of the Arabic Nicene Canons are his
ancients ; yet I do not find that any but Turrianus the Jesuit
and some other bigots of the Church of Home have ever said
one word in their behalf: and if they did never so clearly
speak his sense, yet I should not think it any detriment to
the cause I plead, to give the authors and translators of these
Canons up to the Doctor, as adversaries, not to the Sacrifice,

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 337

but to the sole right, which Bishops and Priests have, to offer
it. He runs to forgers of the seventh or eighth century to
prove that Deacons may sacrifice ; but neither do these
forgers speak his sense.

P. 164. He would have it though t, that his adversary does
oftenest say, that "the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, on account of
the previous Oblation of Bread and Wine." Why should
the Doctor trouble his own or his reader's head with such
airy useless doubts and speculations ? Whatever was brought
to the temple in order to be offered on the altar was called a
sacrifice, whether it were still under the hands of the lay-
offerer, or actually presented to the priest.

P. 165. "Not/' says he, "that the Gifts or Bread and
Wine were this Eucharist;" and, to prove this, he cites the
words of Origen, as above, " the Bread, called Eucharist •"
and he adds, " The Bread and Wine, barely as offered at the
Holy Table, were not this Eucharist or thanksgiving for the
particular benefits of the sufferings of Christ, but symbols of
Eucharist or gratitude to God for all His blessings." These
are his words; what were his thoughts, we are left to guess.

P. 168. As to his proof, that, if the Bread and Wine be a
real Sacrifice, then Incense must be so too; I answer, that
Incense is no Evangelical sacrifice : neither the Apostles,
nor the primitive Church of the first three hundred and fifty
or four hundred years did use it, as Mr. Dodwell has lately
proved in his book on this subject. If it had been a Gospel-
Sacrifice, that is, if it had been a representation of some
other thing, that might prevail with God to bestow His
mercies on us, and as such presented to Him, it had undoubt
edly been a spiritual Sacrifice too ; and the Doctor himself tells
us, that in St. James's and St. Chrysostom's Liturgy, it was
called a " spiritual odour ;" and this is a proof, that, not only
in the very primitive but in the middle ages, it was not
thought an inconsistence to call a material thing ' a spiritual
sacrifice/ And though some later Liturgies do direct the
Priest vocally to offer up the Incense ; yet, by the second
Apostolical Canon, where Incense is first mentioned, the
Bishop or Priest is charged to offer Bread and Wine only in
the Sacrifice ; the Oil and Incense are permitted to be placed
on the Altar, as mere lay-oblations ; and even this sentence

JOHNSON. 7

338 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

in the Apostolical Canons seems to be an interpolation of
later ages.

P. 169. The Doctor would have it, that by " the Gift brought
to God," in the Clementine Liturgy1, is meant Christ Himself;
forgetting, that Prayer is there made, " that it may be received
up to the Heavenly Altar :" and yet perhaps he had some sus
picions of his mistake, for he adds, " but rather the symbol;"
and of this he justly understands " the Pure Gift" in the fifth
Nicene Canon. And I should have thought, that he under
stood some words of St. Chrysostom there cited in the same
sense, as he ought to do, and so will every one else that
reads his words before the citation ; but, having imperfectly
repeated St. Chrysostom's words, he shuffles in some words
of his own to persuade his reader that Chrysostom meant
" a gift from Christ to His disciples" and not to God. He
cites St. Jerome, calling the Eucharist a ' pledge/ which our
Saviour gave to His disciples upon His departure from them
to remind them of His love ; and he might have cited Gau-
dentiusm, to the same purpose : nor is this at all inconsistent
with the notion of a Sacrifice ; the Passover was both a sa
crifice and a pledge, and was intended by God to preserve
the memory of His love to them always fresh upon their
minds.

P. 172. Here our Doctor maims a citation from Tertullian,
which I will therefore give my reader more fully. Et in
omni loco Sacrificium Nomini Meo offer tur (Mai. i. 11) et
Sacrificium mundum, gloria scilicet relatio, et benedictio, et
lam, et hymni. Quce omnia cum in te deprehendantur, et sig-
naculum frontium, et Ecclesiarum Sacramento,, et munditiae
Sacrificiorum, debes jam erumpere, uti dicas, Spiritum Crea-
toris Tuo Christo prophetasse n. Dr. "W. supposes, that he
calls the ' giving glory/ &c., " the purity of the Sacrifices ;"
whereas, in truth, he makes ' the purity of the Sacrifices' a
thing clearly distinct from ' giving glory/ ' praise/ &c., and
if 'the purity of the Sacrifices' are explanatory words, they
must be supposed to relate to what goes just before, viz.,
' the Sacraments of the Churches / for it is not unusual with
the ancients to call the Bread and Wine ' Sacraments' or

1 d. p. 54. Ap. m c. p. 30. Ap. n [Adv. Marcionem, lib. iii, p. 410.]

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 339

s Mysteries' in the plural number, as has been once and again
observed in the foregoing treatise.

P. ] 73. If there must be a Sacrifice, the Doctor is for con
tinuing that of the Passover; and so will we, when he has
produced one good authority for it from Scripture and pure
antiquity.

P. 175. He makes the great Athanasius call the heathen
sacrifices 'real/ in opposition to that of the Eucharist. Risum
teneatis ? But the work here cited is not entirely St. Atha-
nasius's ; nor is there one tittle of Sacrificing in the words
cited by him.

But his master-piece of critique is, that ILZ^VT] \jukvoi Trpo-
o-<pepo/j(,ev in all the ancient Liturgies is to be rendered by
'remembering we offer:' he ought in justice to have added
' this Bread and this Cup;' for the Clementine Liturgy has
these words immediately following the word 'offer,' and all
the other Liturgies have words denoting the same things ;
and how the bare act of reminiscence can offer Bread and
Wine will be a difficulty too hard for the Doctor to solve.
p. 176. He has a criticism like this upon the words of
St. Justin Martyr0; he would have Troieiv be rendered con-
ficere, ' to make bread and wine/ or what else you please, so
it may not signify ' to offer;' and, to confute this Father, he
thus argues, " But however I say that, not the Bread and
Wine appointed for the said purpose, but the sacrifice of
prayer, praise, &c., is the true Christian Eucharist or Sacri
fice ; " who can resist such reason, such authority ?

P. 176. As to his citation from EusebiusP he mis-trans
lates it thus, " We offer Sacrifice and Incense — while we
celebrate, — and offer the Eucharist, &c." The true rendi
tion is, "We both sacrifice and offer Incense; the one we
do, while we celebrate — and offer the Eucharist or Sacrifice
of thanksgiving for [our] salvation by hymns, &c., the other
we do, when we offer ourselves, &c.;" for, by confounding the
'Pure Offering' in Malachi with the 'Incense,' he would make
the former as well as latter seem a mere mental action. All
that here follows has been effectually answered in this book.

P. 177. It is strange, that the Doctor will not allow, that
Ovaias can signify anything but prayer and
b. p. 3. Ap. p g. p. 16. Ap,

z2

340 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

praise in Chrysostom and (Ecumenius, when he himself ac
knowledges, p. 276, that in the citation from Plutarch, to
which I had directed him in the Propitiatory Oblation, an
unbloody sacrifice is a sacrifice of bread and wine, and he
has not produced a single proof that it ever has any other
meaning. The unbloody Sacrifices of Christians are offered
by our lips, as (Ecumenius in this citation declares ; because
the Oblation is made by prayer, not by blood and fire.

P. 178. This citation from Justin Martyr is particularly
considered, Chap. II. Sect. 2.

P. 179. Here begins a paragraph, which is continued
without interruption to p. 293, which is the longest that I
think I ever observed ; but (which makes the matter worse,)
this paragraph is only part of an interlocution, which the
Doctor very naturally makes in his own person in a dia
logue betwixt himself and his adversary; the whole inter
locution contains 154 pages (if I number rightly,) viz., from
p. 160 to p. 314. Many a good book is less in bulk, and
few ill ones contain more numerous mistakes. However
he was resolved to outdo his adversary in multiplicity of
words, for to all this the poor apologist is permitted to
answer but in five lines and a half; and yet I cannot but
think that the Doctor has been so just as to let him say
what is a full answer to all this long interlocution, in little
more than a line and a half of those words which the Doctor
put in his mouth. I have more regard to the Doctor than
to repeat them, for they will be thought a reflection from
my pen ; but the Doctor took a just liberty in making bold
with himself. The reader may have them for looking in
p. 314, and they are as well worth his perusal as any in the
whole book ; they stand very legible in the very front of the
apologist's reply.

P. 180. He proves very fully, that prayers and praises
were offered in the Eucharist, which I suppose nobody ever
denied; but then he mentions Cyril of Jerusalem, as speaking
of " ' a prayer, while the holy and tremendous Sacrifice lay in
open view ;J which, by the bye," says the Doctor, " will you
construe literally ? Here we have a rational Sacrifice . . " Then
he proceeds to Ori gen's words <ij and to prove that Origen

<i b. p. 10. Ap.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 341

meant not a proper Sacrifice, he says, " It is not offered by
a Priest ;" to prove, that it is not offered by a Priest, he cites
some words from Bishop Jewell, so far from his purpose, that
the Bishop declares, " This I mean not of ministration of
Sacraments ;" nor is there one word of Origen mentioned in
that place by the author, whom he cites page 181. The
reader can scarcely believe this credible, unless he please to
convince himself by ocular inspection.

P. 182. He produces Tertullian in his Apologetic, c. 30,
speaking of " offering prayer to God ;" and, because he could
not but be conscious that this was nothing to his purpose,
he adds, "and no material thing;" which are words of the
Doctor's own invention.

P. 183. Here he would prove that St. Augustine knew of
no human sacrifice, because he says, "If you ask for the
Priest (High-Priest he means) He is above the heavens/'
This High-Priest was in heaven during the Levitical ceco-
nomy ; were there, therefore, no priests in the temple ?

P. 184. The Doctor observes that, though the adduction of
the Gifts to the Holy Table did not make them a perfect
sacrifice, yet a more particular benediction of them might.
He grants such a benediction was used in some of the ancient
Liturgies, and produces the words of one of them, viz.
" Bless the Prothesis, accept the Sacrifice ;" he does not here
say, from what Liturgy he has these words ; but p. 22. he
cites them as from St. Chrysostom's Liturgy, published by
Erasmus, which is a book I never saw : but, without seeing
it, I may dare say that these words are part of the Prothesis,
that is, the Service used at the buffet or side-Altar, before
the adduction of the elements to the Altar, properly so called ;
for I apprehend the elements are never called the Prothesis,
after they are taken from the side-Altar, in those Liturgies
which have a Prothesis; and therefore these words must, I
suppose, be as distant from the Benediction or Consecration,
as the beginning of the Office is from the most solemn part
of the consecrative Prayer, following, in all Liturgies, the
commemorative Oblation. But, because the Doctor found the
words 'bless' and 'sacrifice' in the Prayer, he thought it
necessary that his reader should take it for a part of the
more solemn Office ; whereas, though the elements are called

342 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

' Prothesis' and ' the Sacrifice/ yet the blessing of them is
not to be understood, as if they expected it to be performed
during the time they were on the side-Altar ; but, afterwards,
by rehearsing the Words of Institution, by the commemora
tive Oblation, and Prayers for the descent of the Spirit. This
proleptical way of expression is very usual in all religious
Forms. Thus, in the first Prayer of our Baptismal Office, we
pray, that the person to be baptized may be "washed with
the Holy Ghost/' not at the time when these words are
pronounced, but when the act of Baptization is afterward
performed : and he may see, that the acceptance and sancti-
fication of the Sacrifice is prayed for in the introductory part
of the several later Liturgies, in the sense that I now speak
of; not that it was thought, that it was actually to be done
in the very instant that this first petition was put up. What
he means by all this, and on what grounds he supposes that
Mr. Mede distinguishes between the Benediction and Con
secration, he does not inform us, nor am I at leisure to
guess.

P. 186. He tells us, " The blessing or agnizing God in His
creatures falls in together with the Consecration, as set down
in the excellent Form now used in our Church." I wish, with
all my heart, he could shew me such a Form of agnizing God
in His creatures in our Liturgy; and, whereas he talks of
this agnition falling in with the Consecration in other
Liturgies, it gives me reason to question, whether he ever
did attentively peruse any of them; for, it is certain, the
agnition always preceded the Consecration. St. Basil's
Liturgy in the Words of Institution says, indeed, that " Christ
did exhibit Bread to His Father/' but this does not ne
cessarily prove, that the Priest and people, at the repetition
of these words, did themselves formally agnize God's do
minion ; and not only the Liturgies but Justin Martyr's
description of the celebration of the Eucharist plainly shews,
that this agnition was made in words very ample and in the
very entrance of the holy action. It commonly ended with
the Trisagium ; and so was not only before the Consecration
strictly so called, but even the Commemorative Oblation and
the Words of Institution.

Ibid. He tells us, it was " the Benediction [that] distinguished

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 343

the Bread and Wine from other Altar- offerings :" by which
he seems to suppose it necessary, that other Oblations should
be made on the Altar, beside those of Bread and Wine ; and
in this lies his mistake. If by ' Benediction' he means the
whole process of agnizing God in His creatures, the Tris-
agium, Words of Institution, Commemorative Oblation, and
Prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit, he says the truth ;
but then, Benediction signifies the whole Ante-Communion
Service, I mean, all that went before the distribution.

The 37th Canon of Carthage permits honey and milk to
be offered on the Altar once a year ; and the Apostolical
Canon allows grapes and ears of corn to be offered in their
proper season, that is, Autumn ; but that either the honey,
milk, grapes, or corn, were vocally to be offered by the Priest,
together with the Bread and Wine, is only a supposition of
the Doctor and some others. There is no reason to believe,
that any materials, except the Bread and Wine, were any
otherwise offered than by being solemnly presented on the
Altar, and that but once a year. What benediction they
had, was performed apart from that of the Bread and Wine.
"The secondary Benediction" is a mere figment, with which the
Doctor endeavours to puzzle the cause, p. 187. There was but
one Benediction in the primitive times ; the Prothesis and
other additions were made in after-ages. And, whereas he
there supposes that Irenreus by ' first-fruits/ meant all ma
terial oblations, he surely forgets the words of Irenseusr;
" Admonishing His disciples to offer the first-fruits of His
creatures, He took Bread, and said, ' This is My Body,' &c."
The very words of the African Canon8, here cited by him,
would plainly teach him the truth ; for in the Greek Trans
lation (which he cites, as preferring it before the Latin ori
ginal) a charge is given, that nothing be offered in the Sacra
ment TfXeov TOV ^co/jLaros /cal f> AifJbaTos Xpio-rov, " more
than the Body and Blood of Christ •" and the Latin original
means the same thing by those words, " nothing but what
Christ hath commanded."

P. 186. He tells us that, in Chrysostom's Liturgy, the
word ' consecrate' is paraphrased by ( offering these gifts. '
I know the Doctor's glosses too well to lay any stress upon

r c. p. 4. Ap. 1. 17. * African Code, Can. 37.

344 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

them. I own, that Oblation was one part of Consecration ;
but I am far from believing, that to ' consecrate' and ( offer
the gifts/ are parallel expressions ; and therefore I wish he
had told us, in what word the Liturgy expresses the English
' consecrate/ or had given us the entire sentence. The very
phrase, here cited by the Doctor, is used in St. Chrysostom's
Liturgy (in the second vol. of Biblioth. Patrum, p. 74,) in
its proper sense ; and that the reader may be convinced of it,
I here give the whole period faithfully translated: "Enable
me," says the Priest, " by the power of the Holy Spirit, to
stand at this Holy Table, and perform the hierurgy of Thy
Holy and undefiled Body and of Thy Precious Blood. For
to Thee I pray, bowing down my neck ; and, I beseech Thee,
turn not Thy Face away from me, nor reject me from among
Thy servants, but grant that these Gifts may be offered (Gr.
7rpoo-eve^6r',vai ra Scopa ravra) to Thee, by me, a sinner,
and Thy unworthy servant ; for Thou art the Offerer arid the
Offered." Now if these should be the very words that the
Doctor had in his eye, which is not improbable, I can only
say, the Doctor has given us a new specimen of his judg
ment and impartiality.

P. 188. He supposes his adversary will say, that "the Eu
charist is not that Sacrifice (of Christ), but one that repre
sents it; to which," says he, "I oppose the voice, of the
Church in the emphatical words of Eulogius; ' The tremen
dous Sacrament of the Body of Christ, which we offer, is
not an Oblation of different or distinct Sacrifices, or indeed
any more than a Commemoration of that once offered." It
is certain, these words are an emphatical proof of what he
supposes his adversaries would say, viz., that the Eucharist is
not the personal Sacrifice of Christ, but one that represents it.
It is not an offering of various sacrifices : for the Eucharist,
offered in Britain and the Indies, is the same, as being sanc
tified by the same Spirit, as being One and the same mys
terious Body of Christ, in power though not in substance ;
and in this sense it is the same, that was offered by Christ in
the first Institution. And St. Augustine means the same by
the Similitudo Ejus Sacrificii, that Eulogius does by dvdp,-
vrja-is. No man did ever more industriously confute his own
cause; but in charity I believe he does it unwittingly.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 345

P. 191. As before lie called the supposed prayers of the
people over their own Oblations, a ( saying of Grace ;' so he
here calls the most solemn and most excellent Form of Conse
cration now extant in the whole world, by the same name ;
by which he has filled up the measure of his profaneness,
and in this respect deserves to be treated no longer as a
Clergyman, but as one that makes no difference between
holy and profane, that cannot " discern the Lord's Body,"
or make a difference between the Lord's Table and his
own. He asks, " What this blessing amounts to more than
saying Grace ?" I answer, as much as a sacrifice differs
from common food ; the words are*, " We beseech Thee to
look propitiously on these Gifts lying before Thee;" for
I hope that he does not think that they are Gifts, as
given by God to men, but as having been solemnly offered
by men to God in the words immediately foregoing. I
answer further, that they amount to more than a common
Grace, especially in what follows; "And be Thou well pleased
with them for the honour of Thy Christ ; and send down
Thy Holy Spirit on this Sacrifice, — and make this Bread the
Body of Thy Christ, this Cup the Blood of Thy Christ, that
they who partake of it may be confirmed in godliness, obtain
remission of sins, be delivered from the deceit of the devil,
be filled with the Holy Spirit, may be worthy of Thy Christ,
may obtain everlasting life." He who, when he had these
words before him, could ask what they amounted to more
than a common Grace, must be a man, not only insensible
of the power of words, but very much disposed to make the
Sacrament a common meal. He observes that " The for
mality of blessing was full as solemn (John vi. 11, and in the
parallel texts) at our Saviour's multiplying the loaves, as in
the Institution of the Supper." True, and therefore I sup
pose it has a signification in both places, importing a spiri
tual, Divine, preternatural blessing imparted to the Bread.
The Benediction communicated to the loaves and fishes was
miraculous; and though the Benediction on the Eucharisti-
cal elements be not miraculous, yet it is Divine and spiri
tual and beyond the power of nature. And he therefore,
who uses such language, deserves a severer reprimand than
I am able to give him.

1 See c. p. -53, 5L A p. 1. 34, 35.

346 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

P. 191. Here he repeats his old error, which he is so ex
ceedingly fond of, in citing the interpolation of Ignatius, and
confounding the Agapce with the Eucharist.

P. 195. Here he begins to prove, that Christ did not sacri
fice in the Institution. And thus he argues : " If Christ did
offer Sacrifice, it was either by a formal offering of Bread
and Wine to God, or His blessing or consecration of them;
but that neither of the latter was a proper sacrificial rite, we
have just now seen. And as touching the former, after all
your stir about it, no less a man than Ignatius will vouch
against this, when contra-distinguishing oi/re irpoafyepeiv to
ovre OvaLav Trpoo-Ko/uii^ew, or though I should grant that a
formal offering may pass in itself for a true sacrificial rite,
yet would I deny that our Lord, so far as I can find, did at
all use it." Never were lines more big and stuffed with error;
for (to pass by the interpolation of St. Ignatius, which he has
been observed to mention four or five times before, and always
in opposition to his own cause) he denies, or would seem to
deny, that either Offering or Consecrating are sacrificial rites.
He would have done well to tell us, what are sacrificial rites ;
for if these are not, I must declare I cannot guess what are.
Nay, if he can shew us any other rite essential to Sacrifice,
except that of making the Oblation by a Priest duly com
missioned, I will acknowledge myself in a great error. I
know what the Doctor would be at; he would, with Dr.
Hancock, make the f sprinkling of the blood/ and the f burn
ing part or the whole in fire' to be the sacrificial rites; but
he was aware, that our Great High-Priest did neither of these
in the Grand Sacrifice. And, further, it has been observed,
that these rites were formerly the two actions, by which the
Oblation was made; and that no other rites, but those whereby
the Oblation was made, were ever thought essential. And
therefore I must reckon it another error in the Doctor, that
he supposes any other necessary. What he means by saying,
that Pseud-Ignatius denies Offering to be a sacrificial rite, I
cannot divine. He speaks of 'offering' or 'presenting a
sacrifice/ by the first, I conceive, he means the Priestly
Oblation; by the second, the layman's offering it to the
Priest : but let the first be the layman's part in making his
offering to the Priest, the second the Priest's part in pre
senting it to God; I cannot discern on either supposition,

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 347

how he can be conceived to deny that Offering is a sacrificial
rite. I should rather think, that he speaks of these two
actions (if one be not exegetical of the other) to be the only
actions necessary to Sacrifice ; and, indeed, it must be owned,
that the layman is as much obliged to bring an oblation, as
the Priest to offer it. I believe my reader will not wonder
that the man, who doubts whether Offering be a sacrificial
rite and cannot see a proper Sacrifice in these words of Pseud-
Ignatius, which he seems to hug as his darling authority,
should deny and oppose the doctrine of the Sacrifice or any
other doctrine whatsoever. I shall not repeat what I have
formerly said in the foregoing treatise concerning our
Saviour's offering Himself in the Eucharist. The reader
will find all that the Doctor here says, obviated, Chap. II.
Sect. 1.

P. 202. After this account which I have given of the
Doctor's arguings, I am not at all concerned at the repre
sentation he here makes of the most excellent Bishop Bull's
writings, or my own ; the reader will take our meaning from
our own words, and not from Dr. W.'s.

P. 206. "If," says the Doctor, "you will needs have a
Sacrifice, why do ye stand aloof from the Papists ?" Why ?
because they are for a Sacrifice that implies Transubstantia-
tion, for such a Sacrifice as the Doctor every now and then
pleads for in opposition to a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine ;
and because they, together with their false notion of a Sacri
fice, hold many other very gross errors. And, on the other
side, we think ourselves obliged freely to declare our opin
ions in this point, that we may make it appear we are not
schismatics from the Church of the very purest ages, which
most certainly looked upon it as a real Sacrifice and cele
brated it as such. And, as for the dirt, which some would
throw upon us, as if we were Papists or popishly affected ;
we look upon this, as the last refuge of unconscionable ad
versaries ; for I am bold to say that Presbyterians do with as
good reason call our Bishops ' Popes' and our Liturgy ' the
Mass-book,' and the Quakers and others have as good grounds
for calling Priests and Sacraments ' rags of Popery,' as Dr. W.
has to insinuate that the doctrine of the Sacrifice has any
tendency that way ; I mean, the doctrine of the Sacrifice, as

318 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

held by the primitive Church, and asserted by Mr. Mede,
Bishop Taylor, Bishop Bull, Dr. Grabe, and Dr. Hickes.

P. 212. Here the Doctor justly observes, that the Order of
Melchisedec was a Sacrificing Order; and yet, p. 215, he
denies that he offered bread and wine; he ought to have
informed us what it was he offered. But I observe the
Doctor's learning and knowledge is all negative; he has
courage enough to deny any proposition that stands in his
way; but his talent does not lie in building up, but wholly
in pulling down.

P. 215, 216. He allows Melchisedec's Bread and Wine to
be prefigurations of the Eucharistic symbols; and then adds,
"Thus is St. Cyprian to be understood;" and recites that
most illustrious testimony of this Father, which my reader
may see in the Appendix11, for Christ's offering His Body
and Blood in the Eucharist. He has not one word to take
off so great an authority, as I with reason esteem that
to be.

P. 217. He deals much in the same manner with another
irresistible evidence, from the same Epistle of this Blessed
Martyrx. He had been citing the Archbishop of Spalato, for
calling the Eucharist the ' Sacrifice of Memory/ as he ex
presses it; and then goes on, "And this I take to be St.
Cyprian's meaning, however speaking a little seemingly to
the contrary •" and then produces his words. He proceeds
to descant upon them and I know not what else, until he
comes to the end of page 221 . What he says is very harmless ;
but I cannot but observe, how he is forced at last to betake
himself to the old loop-hole, that " St. Cyprian does not mean it
literally." Now what is that [which] he does not mean literally,
that Jesus Christ offered Himself? I suppose he will not say
this, but, that He offered Himself in the Eucharist. And if
Dr. W. mean, that the Eucharistical Body was not His natural
Body, we own it ; but it is beyond doubt, that St. Cyprian, did
expressly say that Christ offered Himself in the Eucharist ;
nor will the Doctor question, whether this venerable writer
thought and believed what he said. Does he not literally say
that "The Priest, who does what Christ did, offers a full
and true Sacrifice?" And why must we not understand

" m. 4. pp. 13, 14. Ap. x m. 9. p. 14. Ap.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 349

him literally in the rest of the paragraph ? Why, because of
the words which immediately follow, Caterum omnis religio-
nis et veritatis disciplina subvertitur, nisi id quod spirituali-
ter mandatur, et fideliter reservetur. The Doctor leaves out
mandatur iu the Latin, but gives it a double rendition in the
English, viz., ' commanded' and ' meant/ And it is certain,
all our Saviour's commands are spiritual; that is, all our
actions must be attended with a sense of our duty, and our
minds must go along with us in the outward performance.
That Christ' s Eucharistical Body is a spiritual Body and
spiritually offered, is very certain ; but it is evident that
Dr. W., according to his hypothesis, cannot allow that it
is offered in any sense ; and therefore, when he says that
the Father is not to be understood literally, he must mean,
that St. Cyprian did not intend to say that Christ's Body and
Blood is commanded to be offered at all, which is directly
contrary to his own words. Yet, sure, the Doctor does not
think, that the word ' spiritually' renders the Bread, Wine,
and Water, which St. Cyprian declares ought to be offered
in the Eucharist perfectly immaterial things, or makes them
vanish into nothing ; but, according to his usual method of
confuting himself, to take off the force of the words ' a full
and true Sacrifice/ he gives us the excellent explanation of
Mr. Perkins, viz., " It is called a full and true Sacrifice, not
that Christ is hypostatically offered, but true, as to the verity
of the representation, and the verity of the effect of the
Sacrifice of the Cross, which we attain in the Communion :"
thus does the Doctor argue against us.

P. 224. It is no great matter what Grotius says of the
Passover, since the Scripture calls it a ' sacrifice' over and
again. Dr. W. would persuade us that Dr. Spencer was of
the same opinion with Grotius, but he was wiser than to
mention page or chapter; and I have shewed that he ex
pressly asserts it to be a most eminent sacrifice, Chap. I.
Sect. 5. of the foregoing treatise.

P. 227. He cites St. Cyprian for sayingY, " In the Sacri
fice, which Christ Himself offered, Christ only is to be fol
lowed ;" and confutes him by saying, " He meant the Insti
tution of the Supper, which I have already shewed not to be
* in. o. p. 1 1, 1,3. Ap.

350 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

a real Sacrifice." This is the Doctor's short way with the
Fathers.

P. 228. Here you have his shrewd argument against us,
viz., that the Eucharist is never called a Sacrifice in the New
i Pet. ii. 5. Testament. Now this is more than the Doctor knows; the " spi
ritual Sacrifices" were very probably the Bread and Wine,
to mention at present no other text. We are very sure that the
symbols are Christ's "Body given for" us, Christ's "Blood
shed for" us ; and if Christ's Body given for us be not a Sacri
fice, I know not what deserves that name. But my reader,
will observe, that this is the very argument used by Quakers
and other enthusiasts against the word ' Sacrament,3 that
the Eucharist is never so called in Scripture. Nay, ' Sacra
ment' is not a Scriptural word, and therefore their objection
is more plausible than the Doctor's,

P. 229. He introduces Bellarmine and other writers of
the Church of Rome, saying, that strictly Sacrificial terms
were not applied to the Holy Eucharist by the first preachers.
The same authors will tell you that Infant-Baptism and the
Consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons cannot be
proved from Holy Scripture. And the reason they have to
say this is, to dispose such Protestants, as have a zeal for
these doctrines, to join in with them in resolving these doc
trines into the authority of the Church. Can the Doctor be
taken with such baits ?

P. 236. To depress the authority of the most primitive
Fathers, and who are only not inspired writers, he reflects on
St. Clement's mention of the Phoenix, and St. Barnabas's
allusion to the Hysena. And, when his hand was in, he might
too have entered his exceptions against David's similitude of
"the deaf adder, which stoppeth her ears, and refuseth to
hear the voice of the charmer." The common belief of the
people to whom we speak, is a sufficient foundation for a
similitude, a moral reflection, or even an argument ad homi
nes. But what a way of arguing is this ? St. Clement was
not a philosopher ; therefore he was no good Divine ? St.
Clement had never travelled into the countries, where the
Phoenix was reported to reside, and so had no opportunity
of inquiring into the matter of fact ; therefore he could not
understand Christianity, though preached to him by the

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 351

Apostles ; and is not to be believed in relation to the Chris
tian Sacrifice, though he had seen it offered by the Apostles,
and it was one chief part of his function, to offer it daily
himself.

P. 245. Here is a very extraordinary passage ; "I will
grant that, from the end of the second century, the Eucha-
ristic Bread and Wine looked something like a Sacrifice ; yet,
when it came to be thought really one by the people, the
Fathers of the Church, very probably I say, guarded against
it, and spoke more plainly than before of the Bread and
Wine as made the Body and Blood of Christ by Consecration ;
but, in process of time, hinc illce lachrymal'3 — he means Trans-
substantiation. He will not allow that the Eucharist looked
like a Sacrifice, till toward the end of the second century ;
he might as well have said the sixth or the tenth, especially
since he believed the passage in the interpolated Epistle of St.
Ignatius to the Smyrnseans to be genuine ; for this Martyr
lived in the first century, and wrote in the beginning of the
second : and he owns this to be meant of the Sacrifice of
the Body of Christ, p. 32. But how did the Fathers guard
against this Sacrifice of Bread and Wine ? Why, by speaking
more plainly of the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood. Strange
men of Fathers ! to guard against a lesser error, by introducing
a greater ! The fundamental error of the Doctor is this, that
he distinguishes between the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine
and the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood. The ancient
Fathers sufficiently guarded against this error, as I have
shewed in the preceding work.

P. 246. He makes the Right Reverend Bishop Fell's ' Meal-
oblation' and his ' lib amen of Bread and Wine' to be the
'praise/ &c. offered in the Communion; and his reason is,
because the Bishop calls it ' an Eucharistic Sacrifice.' This
is very argute ; but he ought to have observed, that the Bishop
himself makes ' the Prayer,' which includes the praise, to be
meant by the < Incense/ Mai. i. 10, 11. and not by the Mincha.
The words of Bishop Fell are these ; Apud Christianas super est
rationale et momentum Sacrificium, quod Malachite verbis Min
cha pur o, hoc est, Oblatione farrea cum suo libamine, Pane scili
cet et Vino, vero illo semperque duraturo Sacrificio Eucharistico,
et precum piarum thymiamate constat. He deals in the same
manner with the words of Bishop Montague in the next page.

352 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

P. 248. He introduces Justin Martyr2, saying, "God now
receives everywhere from Christians those Sacrifices, which
He appointed to be made, that is, in the Eucharist and
Blessing of the Bread and Wine." He renders the word Ev-
Xapio-Tia, ' Eucharist and Blessing/ that he may with greater
grace add, " which acts about them, and not the Bread and
Wine, God testifies Himself to be pleased with/' But my
reader cannot be ignorant of what has been more than once
observed, that Justin Martyr and Origen, &c., call the Bread
and Wine, the Eucharist. I have spoken elsewhere at large
of this passage or rather this dismembered clause ; for he
cites another part of this paragraph, p. 178, to the very same
purpose that he does this.

P. 250. I heartily thank the Doctor for transcribing from
Dr. Nicholls the long passage, relating to the Eucharist, and
shewing the obligation that Priests are under to place the
Bread and Wine on the Holy Table with their own hands, by
virtue of that Rubric, which I have elsewhere mentioned ;
and I do most earnestly recommend it to the consideration
of my Reverend Brethren.

P. 251. The Doctor seems to commend our English Trans
lators of the New Testament, for not turning the Greek
IIpecr/3uTepos by the English ' Priest.' In this I cannot join
with him, especially since the word ' Priest' is retained in
the Liturgy. I think by the same rule, whereby they turned
npeo-jSvrepos, ' Elder/ they should have turned 'ETTIO-KOTTOS,
1 Overseer/ I remember our Doctor, at one place, corrects
Archbishop Cranmer for using the word ' Priest/ by adding
in a parenthesis (' Presbyter' he means,) it is p. 217. I sup
pose he would alter the Litany and Ordination Service in the
same manner, if they were not more incorrigible than an
Archbishop, that has been dead these 150 years.

P. 264, 265. The Doctor is here very profuse of his own
or other men's wit, such as it is, upon Dr. Hickes and his
" satellites/' The author of the Propitiatory Oblation has
just reason to think that this was meant to him among
others, and he thanks him for it ; for he does not question,
but that it will always be more reputable, in the judgment of
all the valuable part of mankind, for a Priest to second any

z e. p. 3. Ap.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 353

great man in defence of Divine Truth, than to make one in
forming a guard to attend a lay patriot in making his ambi
tus to beg for votes in shops and stalls in opposition to the
loyal and peaceable majority of his own brethren. And the
worst of Dr. Hickes's enemies must allow him to be a man
truly great, so far as learning and piety and constancy of
mind can give a man right to that title.

P. 266. Here he makes merry with that observation of Dr.
Hickes and others, that Troielv signifies ' to offer/ He thinks
he has answered all the proofs brought for this signification
of the word by the most learned writer last mentioned, by
saying, " that iroielv and facere are joined with a noun con
fessedly signifying ' Sacrifice/" in all the instances produced
by Dr. Hickes, (see p. 268, of Dr. W.'s book). He should
have said a noun capable of a Sacrificial signification; for
neither ' ox' nor ' sheep' nor any such like words do of them
selves betoken ' Sacrifice/ any more than they do ' ploughing'
or ' grazing' or any other action, in which they are capable of
being agents or patients. And, certainly, the Sacramental
Body and Blood of Christ are as capable of being offered
as any of those creatures, which are joined with the word
Troielv in that ample collection of authorities, which the
reader may see in the ' Christian Priesthood/ What Dr. W.
can mean, when he allows that facere vitulum may signify 'to
sacrifice a calf/ but Troielv rovro cannot signify ' to offer this'
body or blood, I cannot conceive, except out of his abun
dant skill in the Greek tongue he would have rovro put in
the ablative case. And, whereas he calls this proof of Dr.
Hickes's and of the author of the 'Propitiatory Oblation'
argiimentum vitulinum, it is left to the reader to judge,
whether their argument or his answer have most of the calf
in it.

P. 268. The < Christian Priesthood' cites Tertullian for
saying, Nemo convulsus animwn in fratrem suum munus
apud Altare perficiet, nisi prius reconciliando fratri reversus
ad patientiam fuerit . To this Dr. Hickes adds this observa
tion, that " munus perficere is a Sacrificial expression." Dr.
W. here tells Dr. Hickes, that " he seems to have forgot
ten himself, in that he cites the compound perficere as
coupled with a noun which does not necessarily signify

354 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

' Sacrifice/ namely manus ; the which, as joined with perfi-
cere, I should rather think equivalent with obire munus sen
officium, ' to do or execute an office/" — Here is an instance
of our Doctor's skill in the Latin. Tertullian evidently refers
to Matt. v. 23. And, according to this conceit of Dr. W.'s,
that verse should thus be rendered, " If thou bring thine
office to the Altar, and there rememberest, &c. Leave thine
office before the Altar, go, be reconciled to thy brother, then
come, and offer thine office." This is too crude to be put
upon Tertullian, nor will any one own it, not the Doctor
himself, though it be of his own making.

P. 269. He represents Dr. Hickes as saying, that \aftelv
does always import Sacrificing, and that "he who taketh
sacrificeth." I consulted the 'Christian Priesthood' at p. 114,
to which Dr. W. refers his reader. There the Doctor is upon
quite another subject ; but in p. 24 of the Account of the
third Edition, and prefixed to the book, he speaks particularly
of this matter : but there are no words like those which
Dr. W. imputes to him ; he only says that " \aftelv will
fairly bear this sense." See how he misreports his adver
sary's sayings ; and then, to hide his fraud, directs you to a
wrong place of his book ! yet this is the man that would have
himself thought to be a lover of truth.

P. 279. Here he shews us again his fundamental mistake
in relation to the Eucharist. He cites St. Augustine or Ful-
gentius, De Fide ad Petrum, for saying, " The Catholic Church
continually offers throughout the world a Sacrifice of Bread
and Wine in faith and charity." This he supposes a testi
mony for us ; but he cites the same writer De Baptismo, for
saying, " Your faith is to be thus instructed, that the Bread
is the Body of Christ, the Wine the Blood." And this he
supposes favourable to the Popish notion; and he talks of
"carrying away the prize from both us and the Papists;"
as if the Doctor had forgot what he has elsewhere said, that
the Papists allow no Bread in their Sacrifice, and that to say
"the Bread is the Body of Christ" is, with them, rank heresy.
This is equally inconsistent with the notions^ of the Papists
and Dr. W., and only fits the primitive Apostolical Sacrifice
for which I plead.

P. 283. He cites St. Augustine for mentioning the two

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 355

ways of Sacrificing, that of Aaron, and that of Melchisedec ;
and as saying in another place a, " The former is taken away,
and the other diffused throughout the world : " and though
he seems first to question, whether the Father do not mean
Transubstantiation, because he calls it the Sacrifice of the
Body and Blood ; yet, without any further arguing, in the
next sentence he takes courage, and calls him " the true
patron of the Sacramentarians, as you" (speaking to his ad
versary) "and the Papists call us." He refers to no place
in the writings of Dr. Hickes or of any one else, where he
or his friends are so called ; and therefore, if it be a calumny,
it is one of his own coining : but it is strange he should ac
quiesce and patiently bear such an imputation ; for none,
who believe the doctrine of the Church of England, can be
styled ' Sacramentarians/ (Ecolampadius and Zuinglius,
with their adherents, were the men, who were of old justly
branded with this infamous character ; and whether the
modern Calvinists do not favour this opinion, I have reason
to doubt. It is probable, if the writers on our side had
charged their adversaries with this error, we should have
heard them make loud outcries against us on this head ; but,
since the Doctor impleads himself, he ought to have made
his compurgation. For, if he be a Sacramentarian, he cannot
believe that " the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and
indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's
Supper." But the Doctor does not content himself with
moderate errors; for, in discoursing of the priesthood of
Melchisedec, he asserts that Christ "executed it on the
Cross only." It will be impossible to prove, that He did at
all execute it on the Cross; because it cannot be proved,
that the Melchisedec in Genesis did offer " bloody sacrifice."
It is certain, St. Augustine whom he here cites is to be
understood of the Eucharistical Sacrifice only, as may be
seen in the Appendix b; and there is no more direct proof
against the Fathers' belief of Transubstantiation than that
they perpetually say, that in the Eucharist we offer what
Melchisedec did, viz., Bread and Wine ; and this proof we
can urge against the Papists with a much better face than
they who would persuade men, that the Fathers were mis-

8 q. p. 33. Ap. b D. p. 35. Ap.

A a 2

356 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

taken in this point, and that Melchisedec did not sacrifice
Bread and Wine.

P. 284, 285. In these pages we have a lepid conceit of
the Doctor's, that the ancients called the Eucharist a ' Sacri
fice/ for the same reason that the Pope is styled 'his Holiness/
and two neighbouring Kings are styled 'most Christian' and
f most Catholic/ or that himself is called 'Wise.' I suppose he
means an antiphrasis, and that therefore every proof we
produce for the Sacrifice from antiquity is a direct argu
ment against it; and it is upon this lay only, that he and
his friends are like to overpower us.

P. 289. Dr.W. charges Dr. Hickes with saying, that the
Bread and Wine, until consecrated, can at the most be pro
perly called no more than Dona. Dr. Hickes's words, to
which we are here referred, are as follows ; " The Bread and
Wine were the matter, which the people offered, and the
Bishop received and solemnly offered up to God by Consecra
tion for the Heavenly banquet of the Lord's Supper ; and as
they were in the literal sense a proper material offering or
Sacrifice, so they were, in the mystical or Sacramental, the
Body and Blood of Christ." Let the reader judge between the
most learned Dr. Hickes and his antagonist ; the words are in
Pref. before the second Collection of Controversial Letters.

Ibid. He supposes it a contradiction, to be a symbolical
and real Sacrifice ; as if all the Levitical sacrifices were not
both symbolical and real. He calls for the philosopher's
stone to reconcile this difficulty ; and a man would be ready
to suspect that he himself had been studying it, I mean,
by his very odd mixtures and jumbles of things of so very
different a nature, which are so visible throughout the whole
book.

P. 290. Now the Doctor is come to the very thing, which
he denies, and which he expects we should prove, viz., that
the Bread and Wine are a Sacrifice se antecedently to, or ab
stractedly from, their being a representative." But why are
we bound to prove this ? Is it not sufficient, that we prove
them, not only to have been representatives, but to have been
offered as such at God's Altar, with the most solemn act of
Oblation that was ever used in the whole world ? What
necessity is there, that it must have been a Sacrifice, before

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 357

it became a representative ? But, to humour the Doctor, I
have proved that the lay-offerings were called f sacrifices f
those offerings which, the Doctor says, were made by the law
of nature. And, certainly, an Altar -offering may be called a
( sacrifice/ so soon as brought to the Altar-house. So it was
under the Law, as any one may see, Lev. i. 3, where the animal
intended for a burnt-offering is called by that name, before
it was presented to the priest ; and the same may be said of
the sacrifice of peace-offering, which is so called while the
animal was yet in the proprietor's hands, and therefore before
it had been offered by the priest, Lev. iii. 6 — 8.

P. 292. We are here told, that Lactantius distinguishes
" between the Heavenly Sacrament and the sacrifices, and
remarks how the heathen praised all those Christians whom
they could prevail upon to come to the latter." What, did
the heathen praise those whom they could persuade to come
to the Christian Sacrifices ? This is a discovery indeed, but
such a one, as even our adversaries could not believe, though
Lactantius himself should say it ; but, at other places, Lac
tantius owns, as we are told, that Christians had no sacrifices
(meaning sacrifices offered by blood and smoke); but how
then do these things consist ? Why, the truth is, Lactantius
opposes the Christian Sacraments to the heathen sacrifices ;
and no wonder that the heathen praised them whom they
could prevail upon to frequent the latter. And was not this
remark worthy of the Doctor, and very much for the service
of his cause ? In the same page he cites Aquinas, speaking
of the Eucharist as a mere image. I was surprised to think
that the Doctor had converted an old drudge of the Church
of Rome, who had been dead and gone so many hundred
years before the Doctor was born; but I found upon a
scrutiny, that the Doctor uses Aquinas, as he does other
authors ; he cites him by halves. Aquinas does indeed use
the words there cited by the Doctor, and produces St. Augus
tine and St. Ambrose to the same purpose ; but to shew that
he did no more than like them, he adds, " As to the first
manner (the figurative he means), Christ might be said to
be immolated in the figures of the Old Testament." His
second manner is, that Christ is sacrificed " as to the effect
of His Passion ; because by this Sacrament we are made

358 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

partakers of the fruit of it." And to this purpose he cites
an old Dominical Prayer, which says, " As often as the com
memoration of this Sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our
Redemption is exercised/' I wish Aquinas and the Ro
manists had never said any thing worse than this.

P. 294. " The Eight Reverend Bishop of Sarum," says the
Doctor, " asserts, that all that the ancients say concerning
the unbloody Sacrifice must be understood to relate to the
prayers and praises that accompanied it." The reader may,
Chap. II. Sect. 1. of the foregoing book, see and hear the
ancient Bishops and Fathers speaking for themselves ; and
the reader is at liberty to judge for himself, whether the
Bishop of Salisbury have fairly represented their sense.

P. 295. He adds, the same learned Bishop tells us again,
" All that the Scripture has delivered to us concerning the
Eucharist represents it as an action of the whole body of the
people, in which the Priest has no special share but that of
officiating." No other share but that of officiating? I wish
Dr. W. would inform us, what Priests ever had any other
share in offering the Sacrifice, beside this of officiating. But
he tells us, this is an action of the whole body of the people ;
and does this derogate from the Sacrificial nature of it ? At
this rate any sacrifice, that was offered in behalf of the whole
nation of the Israelites, was no proper sacrifice ; for, in this
case, " the whole congregation of the people were to offer it,"
Lev. iv. 14. And, in all cases, the persons, at whose cost or
for whose benefit the sacrifice was offered, are said them
selves to offer it, as has been proved by me over and again.
And, sure, no man believes, that the most stupid of the Jewish
people were so senseless as not to join with the priest in
hearty wishes and silent prayers for the acceptance and
efficacy of the sacrifice. By the Law of Moses there is no
appearance of any vocal prayers or devotions to be used at
the offering of the sacrifice, (only he that brought a sin-offer
ing was to confess his sin over the animal that was to be
sacrificed); but, when verbal devotions were afterwards joined
with sacrifice, the people as well as priest joined in those
devotions, and the priest had no share but that of officiating,
1 Mace. iv. 52 — 56 ; the Jewish priests officiated in their
way, we in ours.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 359

P. 296. He would infer from some words of the said Right
Reverend Bishop, that " during so long a tract of time as the
ten first centuries, the Eucharist was not practised as a real
Sacrifice." With what face then can the Doctor oppose such
an authority, and tell us, as he does at another place (p. 245,)
that from the end of the second century the people really
believed the Bread and Wine a Sacrifice; and that "the
Fathers of the Church, to guard against this error, began
to speak more plainly of the Sacrifice of the Body and
Blood," that is, in plain terms, to introduce the belief and
practice of it ? The truth is, the Doctor misunderstands his
author, as it were easy to shew. The Bishop is a man of
greater learning and knowledge than to assert so palpable
a fiction ; and if he had affirmed it, yet the Doctor himself
could scarce have swallowed it, but might perhaps hope to
put it upon his female readers.

P. 302. Here he errs over his own old error, that to be a
symbol and a memorial are inconsistent with the nature of a
true Sacrifice ; and, because Eusebius calls itc a ' Memorial/
he cannot think he believed it a true Sacrifice. Now that the
Doctor may see that his want of conviction proceeds not from
the things themselves, but from some particular turn of his
understanding and judgment, I will give him the words of
St. Augustine d; "Christians celebrate the Memory of that
same Sacrifice in the Holy Oblation and participation of His
Body and Blood." He calls it in the same sentence fa
Memory/ and yet fan Oblation of the Body and Blood/
And, sure, the Doctor will allow the offering of Christ's Body
and Blood to be a true Sacrifice.

P. 304. Here he runs into the old common-place of the
sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the juge Sacri-
ficium in Heaven. And this is an argument as valid against
all the sacrifices under the Law, as those under the Gospel.
For Christ was a Priest and Mediator before His Incarna
tion, as well as since; and Christ's Blood was shed for re
mission of sins under the first Covenant, Heb. ix. 15, as well
as under the Evangelical Dispensation. But we, as well as
they, stand in need of an applicative Sacrifice; and we have
no other but the Eucharist.

c f. p. 16. Ap. «i H.p. 26. Ap.

360 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

P. 305. In this page we have a fresh specimen of the
Doctor's good judgment in his pretended citation from St.
Athanasius, which he thus translates: "As all, who think them
selves bound to offer sacrifice to God by the blood of animals
and irrational things, do pervert the unbloody Sacrifice of
Christ and make it seem abominable ; so all, who circum
cise the flesh, do set at nought and overturn the spiritual
Circumcision of Christians, viz., Holy Baptism." The writer
was speaking of such as yet practised Circumcision. By
1 Holy Baptism/ in this place, the Doctor is willing to under
stand the ' inward sanctification by the Spirit / but I conceive
he will scarce find any good authority for this sense of the
words, if he mean ' an inward sanctification/ distinct from
that conferred by Water-Baptism. Water-Baptism is spiri
tual-Baptism in the language of antiquity, and as it here
stands in opposition to carnal Circumcision. Neither Jews
nor Judaiziug Christians could reproach spiritual Circum
cision, if by that he meant the Circumcision of the heart;
for that was required even by the Law of Moses, Dent. x. 16,
and the word \ot8opovcn does infallibly signify ' reproach/
though the Doctor is pleased to render it ' set at nought/
thereby to reconcile his author's notion to his own. And if
Baptism by Water be spiritual Baptism, then I cannot con
ceive, why the unbloody Sacrifice should be any other than
that of the Eucharist ; especially since our adversaries have
not yet been able to give us one single instance, where the
epithet ( unbloody' is applied to prayer and praise. And the
Doctor had nothing to trust to but a criticism of his own,
viz., that a\oja must here signify not ' brutes/ but ' senseless
things/ whereas I am pretty sure, he is destitute of any
good authority for so understanding it : and yet, upon these
poor pretences, he makes this translation vary from the
original; for he says, "by the blood of animals and irra
tional things/' whereas it is in the original, " by blood and
brutes;" so that I should claim this writer as my own, if
he were worth contending for. The words were taken from
Quastiones ad Antiochum, which Dr. Cave says were written
in the seventh century or afterwards ; nor can I see why
the Doctor should be so zealous to vindicate him from the
imputation of a tautology, which is incident to the very best

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 361

writers. Thus the Doctor, finding no supply from genuine
antiquity, goes begging votes from one spurious writer to
another, Pseud-Ignatius, Pseudo-Cyprianus, Pseud-Ambro-
sius, Pseud-Eusebius Emissenus, and Pseud-Athanasius ; and
yet neither from them can he extort one word that comes
home to his purpose.

P. 306. The Doctor here asserts, that "the word ' Sacrifice '
cannot univocally be asserted of the Jewish and the Chris
tian Mincha" If he mean that the latter is not so properly a
Sacrifice as the other, he ought to have produced something
at least that had a shadow of reason for it, which yet, I
think, he has not done : for to say that it is offered without
Sacrificial rites is to say he knows not what ; except he
could tell us what those Sacrificial rites are, which are essen
tial to Sacrificial oblations. I have said very often that the
act or acts, whereby the material gift is presented to God, are
the only rites necessary to constitute a Sacrifice ; and that
the prayers and praises pronounced by the Priest are the
only necessary rites or actions for making the Christian Ob
lation ; and I must believe I am right in this, until somebody
can point out some other rite that was always thought ne
cessary beside that of Oblation. When we say it is a spiritual
Sacrifice, our adversaries presently run away with the word
1 spiritual/ and from thence conclude we mean an improper
Sacrifice. But no such matter; by giving it this title, we
mean that it is a more excellent Sacrifice than any offered
under the Law, more clearly significative of the archetype,
blessed by the especial Presence of the Divine Spirit, offered
by a spiritual medium, viz., prayer and praise, which ought
to proceed not from the mouth only but from the heart.
When the Jews from the time of King David used Psalms
and vocal devotions at the time of their sacrifices, yet it can
not be said that their sacrifices were offered by this medium.
The rites of sprinkling the blood arid burning some part of
the material sacrifice were still the oblatory actions, enacted
by the Divine authority of the Law ; and what was sung or
said was only an additional solemnity, and no necessary in
gredient of the sacrifice itself; and the presenting the Sacri
fice itself by a spiritual medium was reserved to be the dis
tinguishing character of the Evangelical Mincha. In the

362 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

next page he denies the Mincha to be a proper sacrifice, " be-
Ps. cxii. 2. cause the prayers of David are called Mincha." Now suppose
David had called his prayer, Mincha ; yet it would by no
means follow, that a Mincha was not a proper Sacrifice. For
the same Divine writer says, " The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit ;" the Hebrew word is zebachim DTDf, which
signifies ' bloody' or c slain sacrifices •/ but I apprehend, the
Doctor himself will not say that it was David's intention in
these words to say, that a bullock that died by the sacrificial
knife was not a proper sacrifice ; and the case is parallel :
but, in truth, David says no such thing. He begs that "his
prayer may be set forth as incense, and the lifting up of his
hands as the evening- Mincha," or c sacrifice' as the English
Translators justly render it : (for I think it is evident, that by
the Mincha he means the lamb, as well as the bread and
wine, which was to be offered every evening.) The Doctor
was willing to have some merely mental action represented by
the Mincha, and so transposes the words, applies that to the
Mincha which David said of the incense, or else through a
hasty zeal that would not give him leisure to look into his
Bible relied too much on his memory ; but if a Priest make
such a blunder in his English Psalter, what can we expect
from him in books with which he is less acquainted? The
Doctor here applies the words of Chemnitius concerning
Eccius to one whom he honours with the name of " Dr. Hickes's
friend;" I can easily guess whom he had in his eye. The words
he means are as follows, " Wherever Mincha is mentioned in
the Old Testament, he pretends that it proves a real sacri
fice under the Gospel ;" which words are just as true as
those I cited from him immediately before, as I could easily
demonstrate, if I had so great a regard to that friend of
Doctor Hickes as Dr. W. has for his own person. In the
mean time, when Dr. W. can shew that this nameless writer
has made any such gross misapplication of the Jewish Mincha
as Dr. "W. has in his citation from Psalm cxli., I dare engage,
he shall recant his error. After this rub to him whom he
calls " Dr. Hickes's friend," he strikes at him, whom one may
justly style a friend to all good men, and the truest fautor
and benefactor to true Christianity and the Clergy, of any
private gentleman in the whole kingdom ; whose writings

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 363

and actions are the fairest transcript of primitive piety that
is, I believe, anywhere to be found in the Christian world.
I need not tell my reader, Mr. Nelson is the man. I should
value myself, if it were in my power to say or do anything
in his defence upon a just occasion ; but what Dr. W. objects,
of his citing the Rabbins, needs no defence. Dr. W. would
certainly have thought it more reputable to have produced
the evidence of the old Jewish Doctors than of those many
modern and old spurious writers, whom he so plentifully
quotes; but he could hear of none but what were directly
against him, and so, to be even with them, he joins Chem-
nitius in crying them down.

P. 309. He seems to think, that the observation of the
Jewish Sabbath (as well as the Lord's day) is grounded on as
good authority as the doctrine of the Sacrifice ; and when
he has proved it, I promise to concur with him.

P. 313. Now to wind up his unmerciful long interlocution,
which he could scarce barely transcribe in a week's time
nor intelligibly pronounce in less than five or six hours, he
soothes himself in the following words, " Thus have I endea
voured upon the whole matter to entertain you with a mix
ture of profitable and pleasant ;" and that he has really done
his best, I in earnest believe. He may " write a book six
times as big/' p. 83, as he seems to threaten us he will do,
if we do not mend our manners ; but I am pretty sure, he
cannot make a greater show of learning and argument in
proportion to the bulk ; nor can it be six times more trifling,
obscure, and incoherent, immethodical and full of affectation,
than the sample he has given us in this present work. The
reader who has never perused his book is not to think that
I have acted the part of a severe censor. I will be bound, if
he think fit to call for it, to give him as many more instances
of errors or impertinences, as I have yet mentioned. I have
singled out those that do most nearly concern the cause in
which I atn engaged ; and, as for the rest, I am willing they
should lie dormant in silence and neglect, except he give me
further provocation. The animadversions I have made in
these few sheets have been the most ungrateful part of my
present undertaking ; but I thought it necessary to convince
the world, that the two most copious writers against the

364 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

Sacrifice were altogether unequal to the task ; and I must
declare that, of the two, Dr. Hancock is the most clear and
tolerable writer. However, Dr. W. has his own good word ;
for thus he goes on (speaking to his adversary), " And now,
Sir, will you be so partial as only in my case to reverse the
maxim, which otherwise you would grant to hold universally,
Omne tulit punctum, qui miscuit utile dulci ?" — and p. 320,
" I love the truth and peace, and it were better for me to die
than that any man should make my glorifying void •" but I
have not patience to transcribe such fulsome, canting stuff.
If I could see anything that was Apostolical in the Doctor
(except the character of a Priest, which he himself vilifies
and in effect renounces), I could willingly excuse his boasting
and glorying; but I cannot discern so much as one of the
infirmities of St. Paul in this writer. And I will no more
undertake to make such glorifying void than to annihilate a
Non-Ens.

POSTSCRIPT.

As I am satisfied that there is nothing in Dr. W.'s Book or
Sermon, which concerns the main cause, but what has been
effectually answered ; and, as to what is personal, I never
intended to meddle with it any further than to repel some of
his grossest reproaches ; so I cannot but make one general
reflection upon the authorities he produces from the ancients.
We have seen what his reasonings are, and what foul mis
takes he has committed in relation to the authorities which
he has cited ; but, because his appeals to antiquity are frequent
and somewhat numerous, I thought fit to draw them up in a
body and set them all at once in the reader's view, that so it
may appear what real service he has done to his cause by
his allegations from the writers of the ancient Church. His
citations for or against the doctrine of the Sacrifice are much
about a hundred ; I am apt to think, that this was the round
number he aimed at. I will not dispute with him, whether
he have furnished his complement by splitting one paragraph
into two several citations for the proof of the very same
thing, or whether he may not a little fall short or exceed
as to the number just now mentioned.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 365

I. I will lay before the reader the citations which he has
produced directly against the cause which he would be
thought to maintain, or which at least seem so to me.

1 Chrysostom's Liturgy, EvXoryjjo-ov irpoOecri
, p. 22, 85.

*7 Cyprian's Epistle to Crecilius, p. 20, 192, 216, 217,
222, 227, 228, (in Appendix, m.)

1 Chrysostoin's 9 v a lav dftefyas, p. 31.

1 His citation from Pseud-Ignatius, p. 32, &c.

1 St. Ambrose, or Hilary, " Una est hcec hostia, non
multce," p. 37.

1 From the Apostles' Constitutions, lib. vi. c. 23, (which
see in Appendix6,) p. 44.

1 Cyprian, " Sacrificia pro Us offerimus" p. 160.

1 Concil. Nic. Can. AICLKQVOI ^ e^ovres e%ov<jiav Trpoo--
(frepeiv, p. 160.

1 Idem Can. 5. KaOapov Swpov, p. 160, 169.

1 Origenf, p. 163.

1 Chrysostom's Liturgy, dvai^aKros Owla, p. 165.

1 Cyril of Jerusalem s, p. 163.

1 Origen's apros Ev^apicrrla rcdXov/Aevos, p. 165.

1 St. James's Liturgy, aval/ia/cros Ovcria, p. 166.

1 Chrysostom's Liturgy, fjTpoa-eve.')(6r)vai ra Swpa, p. 168.

1 Tertullian's " munditice Sacrificiorum" p. 172.

1 Justin Martyr concerning the leper's cakeh, p. 178.

1 Eusebius's Ovo^ev KOI Ov^iwfjiev1, p. 176.

1 St. Mark's Liturgy, dvaip,a/CTO$ \arpeta, p. 176.

1 St. Chrysostom's avat/jLa/croi, Ovaia^ p. 177.

1 Apost. Const. k, p. 179, 180.

1 Cyril of Jerusalem, rrjs d<ylas Trpo/cet/jLev'rjs 0v<r£asl, p.
180.

1 Origenm, p. 181.

1 Jerome, " cum Te pro nobis offers" p. 180.

1 Can. 37. of Afr. Code", Cone. Garth. 3. Can. 24. p. 186.

1 Eulogius, rov O-CO/JLCLTOS Kvptov reXer/}, p. 188.

e c. p. 47. Ap. k c. p. 53. Ap.

t a. p. 9. Ap. ' f. p. 19. Ap.

g f. p. 19. Ap. »' b. p. 10. Ap.

h b. p. 3. Ap. n p. 51. Appendix.
J g. p. 15, 1G. Ap.

366 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

1 St. Augustine, " Christus omni die immolatur," p. 203.

1 Euseb. Emis., " Redemptionis Oblatio," p. 203.

1 Cyril. Alex., avaipaKTos \arpela, p. 213.

1 Isidore Pelus., 6elov Tlaa^a, p. 223.

1 Chrysostom, eo-^ta^fjievos Kelrai 6 XpiaTos, p. 277.

1 Gelasius Cyz., a/^pos Tedv^^evos, p. 277.

1 Fulgentius, " Sacrificium panis et vini," p. 203.

1 Idem, " Sacrificium Corporis et Sanguinis," p. 203.

1 St. Augustine, "sacrificium Melchisedec," p. 283.

1 Pseud-Athanasius, avaifjuaKTos Ovala, p. 305.

1 Apost. Const., lib. viii. c. 46, dvai^aKTos Ovaia, p. 199.

N. B. He cites St. Cyprian's Epistle to Csecilius seven
several times, and produces seven several passages out of it ;
and that the whole Epistle is directly a confirmation of the
doctrine of the Sacrifice will appear to any one, that pleases
to peruse my large transcript from it in the Appendix ; and
therefore it must be granted that, whatever fanciful turn
Dr. W. may give to some of his words, they must in reality
be meant in another sense than he has given them; so that
forty-three at least of his citations, rightly understood, are
evidences of the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
And I may reckon (Ecumenius's words of "the unbloody
Sacrifice, offered by the lips," for another; and Julian the
Apostate's " new Sacrifice" is an express acknowledgment
of this doctrine ; for though he, by calling it ' new/ intended
to disparage it, yet even Irenseus calls it a " new oblation."
If he had meant prayers and praises, he could not have
called it f new/ for this was as old as mankind. You have
(Ecumenius's words, p. 177, Julian the Apostate's, p. 238, and
you may, if you please, add Lucian's /caivrj reXer?}, which is
there also mentioned. I did not take notice of (Ecumenius
in the foregoing list; because his authority is of no weight,
as being a writer of the tenth or eleventh century. Julian
and Lucian were professed infidels, therefore I place them
last of all ; but their authority is as good for the Sacrifice, as
it would have been against it, if Dr. W. could have made
them speak his sense ; so that near half his citations are
proofs of the Sacrifice, though not perhaps so full as those
which I have chosen for the support of it. Many of them

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 367

indeed are the very same ; and the rest would have served, if
I had not thought that I had better.

II. Another file of citations you have from Dr. Wise, to
prove that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise. Some of
these I have produced ; because I apprehended that they are
to be understood of a material sacrifice. However, I have
mentioned them under this head ; because it must be left to
the reader's judgment, whether the Doctor or I am right.
This is certain, that nothing of this sort produced by the
Doctor makes against us, because it is agreed on both sides
that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise, and that prayer
and praise are often called ' Sacrifice' and have great power
and excellency attributed to them.

2 Cyril of Alexandr., p. 26, and again, p. 122.

1 Tertulliau, p. 161.

2 Basil's and Chrysostom's Liturgy, p. 166.
2 Justin Martyr, p. 178.

1 S. Clemens Rom., p. 179.
1 S. Gregor. Naz., 179.
1 Origen, p. 180
1 Lactantius, p. 181.

1 Tertullian, p. 181.

2 S. Augustine, p. 182.

2 Clemens Alexandrin., p. 182.
1 Lactantius, p. 240.

III. He has the following citations to prove, that Christ's
natural Body is not offered in the Sacrament or is not at all
there, but only a representative or memorial of It.

1 S. Augustine, p. 20.

1 Facundus, p. 41.

1 S. Augustine, p. 183.

2 S. Augustine, p. 281.
1 S. Augustine, p. 282.
1 S. Augustine, p. 283.

1 S. Augustine, p. 223.

2 S. Augustine and S. Ambrose, p. 293.
1 Pseud-Ambrose, p. 193.

1 S. Ambrose, p. 193.
1 Cyril of Jerus., p. 193.

368 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE

1 Epiphanius, p. 124.
1 Ephrem, p. 194

IY. He has the following citations to prove, that incense
was thought a sacrifice, in the ages when the purity of the
Church was declining.

1 From the Apost. Canons, p. 168.
1 Chrysostonr's Liturgy, p. 169.
St. Basil's Liturgy, p. 169.
1 Pseud- Hippolytus, p. 171.
1 S. James's Liturgy, p. 172.

V. He has the following citations to prove the Eucharist a
feast, which neither Christian, Jew, Heathen, or Mahometan,
ever doubted of.

1 Pseudo-Cyprian, p. 167.
1 Gregory Naz., p. 195.

1 Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 195, where he turns SeiTrvov T&V
re\ov^iva)v, the ' Supper of all suppers/

VI. He has other citations to prove, that first-fruits were
offered, which is allowed on both sides.

1 From the Constitutions0, where he makes the Constitutor
say that " God permitted not Christians to sacrifice •" de-
falking " ra aXoya" ' brutes,' which immediately follows in
the Greek; with what conscience he did this, he himself
knows.

1 Lactantius, p. 254.

1 Irenseus, p. 254.

VII. He has two citations to prove, that Christ is in
heaven; from whence he would infer, that there are no
Priests on earth.

1 Origen, p. 215.

2 S. Augustine, p. 215, 183.

VIII. He has one citation from Pseudo-Cyprian, to prove
all Christians, Sacrificers, p. 161.

IX. He has his two supposed authorities to prove, that
Deacons sacrificed in the Church.

0 a. p. 47. Ap.

CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 369

1 The Canon of Ancyra, with the AICLKOVOI duoravres,
which I suppose he would be glad if I would strike out of
the account, p. 160.

1 The Arabic Canon of Nice, which proves nothing at all,
p. 160.

I look upon other citations of his as mere blanks or
cumble, as being produced for no purpose ; as that of Lac-
tantius, concerning offering the bodies of dead animals, p.
274; that from Cyril of Alexandria, that animals are more
excellent than senseless creatures, p. 34; two or three from
St. Jerome, and one from St. Ignatius, concerning Bishops
and Priests, p. 219; one from St. BasiFs Liturgy, to prove
that Christ took Bread and blessed it, p. 186. Another from
Walafridus Strabo, intimating that Liturgies have been aug
mented, p. 241 ; and that from St. Cyprian, of the Church's
giving place to the Capitol, p. 175. Now setting aside these,
(and there may be some others) as wholly foreign to the pre
sent dispute, we want about four of a hundred.

We have then four citations remaining, which the Doctor
might urge with some face, or five as the Doctor manages
them ; for he splits a paragraph of Justin Martyr into two,
and cites one part of it, p. 178, the other, p. 248; the second
is from St. Chrysostom, in his Sermon, p. 13, and Book, p. 31 ;
the third from Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 182 ; the last from
the Constitutions, p. 240. The first, third, and fourth, seem
to say, that prayer and praise is the Christian Sacrifice ; and
the second, that the Eucharist is rather the Memory or
Memorial than the Sacrifice. This last is considered, Chap.
II. Sect. 1; the three others, Chap. II. Sect. 2. If Dr. W.
had contented himself with these four authorities, he might
have written with a plausible appearance of truth, and seemed
to speak pertinently on the subject; but I am much mistaken
if there be any passage in genuine antiquity that can keep
the cause in countenance, if these four will not ; and I ap
prehend I have said enough in my foregoing book to con
vince impartial readers, that even these four places are not
against the doctrine of the Sacrifice; and if they were, yet
sure, the general concurrence of other writers will be suffi
cient to determine the judgment of an unbiassed inquirer ;

370 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST, &C.

especially when it is considered, that these very writers, all
but one at least, do in other places sufficiently express their
minds in favour of the Sacrifice; and that one, I mean
Clemens Alexandrinus, if he do not by the Logos mean the
Eucharist, yet very probably alludes to the material Sacri
fice in those very words, which are in dispute ; but his way
of reasoning and expression are so much upon the sublime,
that I dare not be positive in my opinion concerning him.
However, this is evident upon the whole, that the champion,
with whom I have been arguing, has brought near fifty
authorities against his own doctrine, or rather against it
than for it ; and near an equal number, that make neither
one way nor the other ; some few citations he has made, in
which I cannot see what end he proposed to himself but to
make a show of learning ; and four citations he has produced
from the writers of the four first centuries, which a writer,
that could have dressed them up with the advantages of fair
colours and specious words, might have made to appear plau
sible to readers that were predisposed to be misled ; but, as
it has happened hitherto, the evidence and the advocates have
been equally defective.

BRIEF REFLECTIONS

UPON A LATE BOOK ENTITLED, "AN ANSWER TO THE EXCEPTIONS MADE
AGAINST THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD Sa CHARGE, &C." SHEWING THE
MISTAKES OF THE AUTHOR OF THAT BOOK, IN RELATION TO THE DOC
TRINE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST.

MY reader will excuse me, if I do not repeat the arguments
which this writer has transcribed from those that have for
merly written on the same side of the question, and the reply
made to them already in the foregoing book ; and therefore
I have very little to say to this gentleman; for even his
calumnies are all stale. Nor can I observe anything new in
all the pages he has given us on this subject, but only a few
errors and misrepresentations, and some graftings and im
provements on the mistakes of those who have written before
on that side.

P. 24, 25. He demands that we should shew reason, why
the texts of Scripture, urged by us, " must be understood
literally and not figuratively ;" and complains of the writers
for the Sacrifice, that tf they wrest words and expressions to a
literal meaning." Now, certainly, all rational interpreters
of Scripture and masters of controversy will agree with me,
that the literal sense is to be preferred before any other,
except there be some very strong and weighty reason to the
contrary. And if our adversaries grant that we have the
literal sense for us, as this writer seems to do, this is all we
desire. For to assert, that any text is to be taken in a figu
rative sense, when there lies no just objection against the
literal, is perfectly precarious. ' To wrest words to a literal
sense/ is a phrase, which to me sounds a contradiction ; it is
just as if one should say, ' the carpenter wrests his plummet
to a straight line/

Ibid. After having produced the words of St. Clement b, he
immediately adds tho^e of St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the

a [i.e. Dr. Talbot.] h b, c. p. 1. Ap.

B b2

372 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

Smyrnseans, c. 8. viz., " It is not lawful without the Bishop
to baptize or make a love-feast." And after five lines he goes
on thus, " These holy Fathers by the phrases, ' offering gifts/
' performing gifts and Sacrifices/ do intend in these places
the whole Ministerial office in general." He had mentioned
no Fathers, but those two before named ; and he had cited
no words from the latter, but those just now rehearsed : and
yet speaks of both of the holy men, as using the phrase of
'offering gifts/ &c. Certainly, there is a strange fate at
tends the adversaries of the Sacrifice as to this passage of
St. Ignatius. Dr. Hancock and Dr. Wise do both cite it, as
it stands in the interpolated Epistle ; and so make this Apo
stolical man speak of ' offering, and presenting a Sacrifice'
in the Christian Church : a proof, which, if it were found in
the genuine works of St. Ignatius, they would never be able
to evade. But this writer, that he might in something out
do those that had gone before him, expressly cites the true
Ignatius, but means the supposititious; for the latter does
indeed, in the place before specified, speak of ' offering/ but
the other whose words he alleges does not. All three of
these writers run their head against the same post; but
this last shews himself the most hardy of the three, for
he does it with open eyes.

P. 25, 26. He asserts, that " these Fathers (he should
have said ' this Father/ viz., Clement) by the phrases, ' offer
ing gifts/ ' performing gifts and Sacrifices/ and the like,
do intend in these places the whole Ministerial office in
general, or at least the whole service of the Church :" but
he gives no reason for this assertion ; but found it necessary
roundly to affirm it, as the only expedient he could invent
for the defence of his cause and of the Bishop of Lincoln's0
Translation of St. Clement. It is very evident, that the
phrase of ' offering the gifts' does not in this Epistle mean,
either ' the Ministerial office in general/ or ( the whole service
of the Church/ This very writer, in the place now under
our consideration, translates St. Clement's words thus; " We
ought to do all things in the order which Christ has com
manded us to do ; to perform our offerings and services or
ministrations at the appointed seasons." By these words it

c [i. e. Bp. Wake's.]

373

is evident, that ' to perform offerings' (as he chooses to speak)
was but one part of the Divine worship ; the rest is expressed
by ( Services' or ' Ministrations :' and these latter are more
comprehensive words than the former. If ' offering the
Gifts, Sacrifices, &c.' does ever signify ' the whole service of
the Church' in the genuine remains of true antiquity, there
must be some reason for this way of expression. And, I pre
sume, our adversaries themselves will not be able to assign
any better than this, viz., that the name of the whole is often
taken from some considerable part. Thus the vulgar, when
they say that such a Clergyman ' preached/ do often mean,
that he performed the whole office of the Priest ; and yet if
there were no sermon, even the most vulgar would scarce
bear with that man, who should use so very improper a way
of speaking ; much less is it to be supposed, that the primi
tive Fathers would express the whole service by ' offering the
Gifts/ if no Gifts were offered.

P. 26. This writer tells us, that "the true import of
Clement's words would have been unintelligible and not to
be explained, did they not receive light from the known lan
guage and usage of the ancient Church." On the other
side, I believe, that there is not one phrase used by this
holy man in this Epistle, that may more easily be under
stood by one* that never had looked into any other book but
the Bible, than the phrase of ' offering the Gifts :' but the
truth is, the Scriptural meaning of this phrase is inconsistent
with the notions of these gentlemen ; for there is no mention
of any gifts being offered in the Old or New Testament but
what are material; and therefore upon this occasion they
appeal from Scripture to antiquity, but to their own con
fusion.

P. 27. " The ancients," says this author, " sometimes
apply the word Swpov and dvcrla, to the prayers of the
Christian congregation, and especially to the devotion of the
Communion-Service." Suppose that they do this "some
times," this is not sufficient to prove this way of speaking to
have been " the language of the ancient Church." David
calls the broken heart a sacrifice; but no man will from
thence argue, that the word ' Sacrifice' denoted contrition of
spirit, in the current language of the Jews of that age. To

374 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

prove that Prayer was the Gift offered in the primitive Church,
he alleges the words of the Apostolical Constitutions, lib. ii.
c. 23, which have been particularly considered in the foregoing-
book, Chap. II. Sect. 2. Now giving it for granted, that
the Constitutions do at one particular place use this way of
expression ; it will by no means follow, that this was the
usual language of the Constitutors, much less of the Christian
Church; for against this one instance the reader will find
thirteen or fourteen very clear examples of their using the
word ' Offering' or ' Sacrifice' for the material Eucharist in
those extracts, which I have taken from these Constitutions,
in pp. 46, 47, 52, 53, of my Appendix. The writer had
but this single twig to take hold of; and I am afraid,
this will scarce preserve him and his cause from sinking in
the eyes of equitable judges. I will further allow him his
citation from Tertullian, which he took from Cotelerius's note
on this passage in St. Clement ; nay, I will further grant his
reference to St. Chrysostom, unsight and unseen, to say what
he would have it, (for he has not produced the words); yet all
these three citations prove no more than this, that three
writers in 400 years' time, did, once in their whole lives'
time, call Prayer a 'Gift' or 'Sacrifice.' Will this prove it to
be the language of the Christian Church in opposition to those
very many citations, even from the writings of these very
Fathers and ancients themselves, with which I have presented
my reader in the Unbloody Sacrifice ? He has indeed a dark
fellow of a modern on his side, thus far, that he says, " It is
doubtful, whether St. Clement meant first-fruits or giving
of thanks" in this place d. I call him ' dark/ because Mon
sieur Le Clerc, who published this man's Annotations on the
Epistle of St. Clement, gives no other account of him than
this ; that he had written some notes in the margin of Cote-
lerius's edition of St. Clement, which deserved to be con
sidered, and that " he was a learned man e." It is not
improbable that Le Clerc meant himself; and that he ob-

d ["Awpa. Nemo Veterum ita sine e [" Praeterea nonnulla addita sunt,

adjecto simpliciter loquutus est ; am- ex manu viri docti, qui orae editionis

biguum enim velitne primitias, gra- Cotelerii, quaedam adleverat, digna

tiarum actiones, eleemosynam, &c. quae diligentius expendantur ab eru-

Sanguis et Corpus Domini sunt dona ditis."] — See Le Clerc's Preface to the

Dei." — Clerici in Patres Apostolicos, Patres Apost,, [p. 2. Ed. Antw. 1698.]
p. 172.]

375

trudes some notes on the world under the person of an
anonymous man of learning, which he was ashamed to pub
lish as his own. See how our present writer introduces this
citation ; " Some," says he, " of the learned men, who have
written notes on this Epistle, &c." Thus a single modern
Annotator without name, or (which is worse) Monsieur Le
Clerc, the great and known enemy of primitive Christianity,
is by the writer of the book which I am now considering
multiplied into a company of learned men ; for so this anno-
tator is here styled ' Some of the learned men/ But even
this dark annotator, as if he had a mind to recant his former
crudity, immediately adds, " The Body and Blood of the Lord
are the Gifts of God;" which I look upon as the unwilling
confession of an adversary to the Sacrifice, extorted from him
by the force of Truth.

P. 29. This writer observes, that 7rpocr^>epo^ev signifies
' we pray/ three times in one Prayer, meaning that of the
Clementine Liturgy f. He does well not to cite his author for
this signification of the word, for he had no other but Dr.
Hancock; nor can he produce one single instance from
any good author, either ancient or modern, for this odd con
ceit. This very Prayer is an evidence against this sense of
the word; for when the Bishop says, Trpoo-fapojjuev ^OL rbv
dprov TOVTOV /cal TO TTOTtjpiov TovTO, I hope no man will
render the words, "We pray this Bread and this Cup to
Thee." We have before seen what sorry work Dr. Wise
has made, when he undertook to expound this Form of Obla
tion; and we shall soon see, that this other gentleman is
altogether as unfortunate in his glosses. At present I only
take notice, that he is forced to give two several senses to
the same word and in the same prayer; and that for no
other end, but to escape the irrefragable authority of this
most ancient and most excellent Liturgy.

P. 29—31. But at last he is willing to allow "other
Oblations beside Prayer," p. 29. But then he adds, "It was
not peculiar to the Bread and Wine alone to be so offered
up, but other things also that were designed for the sacred
uses of the Church, as oil and frankincense for incense,
and also the first-fruits of their corn and vineyards," It is

f c. pp. 53, 54. Ap.

376 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

true, by the third Apostolical Canon, or the second sentence
in the second Canon (according to the division in Cotelerius),
ears of corn, and grapes, and oil for the lamps, and incense,
(not frankincense, as this writer would have it) were allowed
to be presented or brought to the Altar. Now that the
reader may be fully convinced of the false reasonings, which
this gentleman is guilty of, I will here give a literal transla
tion of the whole Canon, which may be seen in my Appendix,
p. 47. " If any Bishop or Priest offer anything in sacri
fice on the Altar of God, beside what the Lord hath com
manded, whether honey, or milk, or made liquor instead of
wine, or birds, or animals, or pulse, over and above what is
commanded, let him be deposed. Beside ears of new corn
or grapes in their proper season, let it not be lawful to pre
sent or bring any thing to the Altar, but oil for the lamp,
and incense for the time of the Holy Oblation. Let all other
products be sent to the Bishop or Priests, as first-fruits, and
not to the Altar." Here are three several periods, which
some divide into three several Canons, and call them the
third, fourth, and fifth, as you may see in the Appendix.
The first only speaks of the Oblation properly so called, of
the Oblation as made by the Bishop or Priest ; and charges,
that he shall offer nothing " in sacrifice" but what the Lord
hath commanded. If any one can doubt, what the Lord hath
commanded to be offered, the twenty-fourth Canon of the
third (alias sixth) Council of Carthage will resolve them,
that it is " Bread and Wine •" see Appendix, p. 50. By this
it is very evident that, if by ' so offered' he mean vocally
offered at the Altar in the proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist
by the Bishop or Priest, then it was peculiar to the Bread
and Wine to be so offered; but if by ' so offered' he means
brought to the Altar by the layman, then he says nothing
to his own purpose. For though it is confessed that other
things beside Bread and Wine might sometimes be placed
on the Altar, yet these other things were never deemed to
be any part of the Eucharistical Sacrifice ; nor are these other
materials required to be offered by the Bishop or Priest, by
the Apostolical Canon. And St. Clement speaks of the
Bishops, who had duly made the Oblation of the Gifts ; and
it is concerning the meaning of St. Clement's words, that

377

our writer is now inquiring. And that, when the Aposto
lical Canons allow some other things beside Bread and Wine
to be offered at the Altar, they mean no more than that lay
men may bring them to the Altar and have them solemnly
placed on it by the Celebrator, appears, by comparing the two
last sentences ; the first of which is, " Let it not be lawful to
present or bring anything to the Altar, beside ears of new
corn, &c. ;" the other is, "Let all other products be sent
to the Bishop or Priests/' For I conceive it will easily be
granted that the ears of corn were to be presented or
brought, and the other products sent to the Bishop or
Priests by the same sort of men, viz., the laity, or that the
Bishops were not to provide, oil for the lamps, or to bring
ears of corn to Church to present at the Altar, or to send
the first-fruits and products of the earth to themselves or
to the Priests ; but that laymen were to provide and bring
to the Altar, or send to the Bishop or Priests the materials
before mentioned. And therefore our Answerer must give me
leave to say, that I cannot see the pertinence or consequence
of what he here alleges, and that the very Canon to which
he here refers is a direct evidence against him. And if any
thing more seem necessary to the clearing of this point, I
must desire my reader to consult 'the Clergyman's Vade
Mecum,' Part II. Edition the second, on this Canon.

P. 32. He would have it, that " there is a certain undeni
able difference between an Oblation and a Sacrifice, and that
every thing offered to God, though at the Altar, is not a
Sacrifice/'

Here he had a fair opportunity of letting us know, what
that certain undeniable difference is, between an Oblation
made at the Altar and a Sacrifice, if it had not been a dif
ficulty beyond his power to unfold. And this is the common
way of arguing with our adversaries, positively to affirm, and
to leave it to others to prove. He speaks of our " warm con
tentions to make the Bread and Wine an Oblation to God
before the Consecration/' I can see no reason, why we should
so warmly contend for what our adversaries grant, particu
larly Dr. Wise and this Answerer. We have indeed asserted
it; and we see no reason to repent of this assertion. Every
thing brought by the layman to be offered on the Altar was

378 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

in some sense an Oblation or Sacrifice, before the Priest had
performed the sacred operations ; but what we chiefly contend
for is, that the material Eucharist, after the Words of Institu
tion had been repeated over it, was most solemnly and reli
giously offered to God in the primitive Church.

P. 33. The Answerer observes, that "it does not appear,
that the taking the Sacramental Bread and Wine out of the
general offerings at the Altar was founded upon any Divine
Institution." If by ' Divine Institution' he means any ex
press words of Scripture, it is true. And it is as true, that
we are not, by any explicit direction of Christ Jesus or of His
Apostles, informed by whom or at whose expence the Bread
and Wine shall be provided, or by whom it shall be brought
to the Church and placed on the Lord's Table. Our Saviour
thought it sufficient to let His disciples know, that there was
to be an Altar in His Church, to which they were to ' bring
their gifts/ Matt. v. 23. What sort of gifts they were to be
and in what proportion to be offered, He nowhere declares ;
only when He consecrated and offered the Eucharist, He
plainly enough declares, that Bread and Wine are the ma
terials, which are principally required to be offered on His
Altar. He could not suppose that any body of men, who
called themselves Christians, would bring their gifts in so
sparing and niggardly a measure, that there should not be
a sufficient quantity of elements for the celebration of the
Divine Mysteries ; much less did he caution men against
offering more than was absolutely necessary to this purpose.
Now it is certain, the sacred symbols must either be taken
out of a mass of bread and wine, or else only just so much
bread and wine must be offered, as was necessary for the
holy action ; and therefore, except this Answerer can prove
that no more was to be offered than what was absolutely
necessary, it must unavoidably follow, that the Sacramental
Bread and Wine must be " taken out" of the mass of loaves
and wine presented at the Altar. If by ' the general offer
ings' he means the ears of corn or grapes, the money or
other valuable things, which were sometimes offered on the
Altar, but were forbidden there to be offered by the Apo
stolical and Carthaginian Canon, then he is of an under
standing below what I take him to be; for he supposes it

379

to be necessary, that other things beside Bread and Wine
should be offered in order to the Eucharist by the practice
of the primitive Church ; whereas it is evident that, though
other things were permitted to be presented on the Altar,
yet nothing was thought necessary but "what Christ com
manded," that is, Bread and Wine. I am apt to think
that this Answerer's meaning was, that it does not appear
that the bringing the Gifts to the Altar, Matt. v. 23, has
any necessary connection with the celebration of the Eu
charist ; and, indeed, I cannot say that it has by any open
declaration of Christ Jesus : but it is very evident, that the
whole Church of Christ in the most pure and primitive
times did believe that Our Saviour intended the bringing
the Gifts to the Altar to be necessarily previous to the Holy
Sacrament, as their universal practice does effectually testify;
and let our Answerer, when he is at leisure, tell us, where we
shall find a better comment on the words of our Saviour.
The truth is, the most primitive Christians never appear to
have held a solemn public assembly but for the celebration
of the Eucharist, or this at least was the most essential part
of their common devotions ; and if therefore they were to
bring their gifts to the Altar, when should they do it but
upon this occasion? And if the Bread and Wine were the
most or the only necessary Oblation to be made at the Altar,
as it is evident they were, it could be no question, whether
the people should present them before the Eucharist or
after it.

P. 33, 34. Another scruple proposed by this writer is
much of the same sort with the former : " St. Clement of
Rome does not only say that Our Lord commanded offerings
to be made, but that He commanded them to be made at
certain appointed seasons, at fixed times and hours. Now
would Dr. Grabe, if yet alive, contend, that Christ has by
Divine command fixed the times and hours when the Sacra
ment is to be administered? I know he would not;" and
again he represents St. Clement as saying, that " Christ ap
pointed the times and hours of celebrating the Supper," p. 52.
He translates St.Clement's words rightly enough, viz., " Christ
commanded offerings to be made at certain fixed times and
hours ;" but then he gives them a turn of his own, when he

380

REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

varies them in this manner, viz., that " Christ hath by a
Divine command fixed or appointed the times and hours."
That the reader may be convinced of the great difference be
tween the real words of St. Clement and this gentleman's
variation of them, I desire it may be observed, that it may
truly be affirmed both of Christ and of the Church of Eng
land, that they have commanded the Eucharist to be cele
brated at appointed fixed times ; and yet it may as truly be
denied, that either Christ or the Church of England have by
any positive command fixed the precise time or hour, when
it shall be done. Both Christ and the Church have com
manded the Eucharist to be solemnized at certain appointed
hours, not indeed explicitly and by any express law men
tioning these hours ; for there is no such law, either in the
New Testament, or in the Rubrics, Canons, or other authori
tative Constitutions of the Church. The Communion is in
deed directed to be administered by our Church on certain
great festival days ; but at what time of those days, or whether
in the forenoon or afternoon, the Church has, I conceive, no
where determined. But yet both Christ and the Church have
by very strong and inevitable implication commanded the
Sacrament to be administered at certain appointed hours ; be
cause the very requiring of this duty to be performed does
unquestionably imply, that it should be done at certain, de
termined hours ; because the nature of the duty is such, that
it must be performed in this manner or not at all. Some
duties may be performed at any time, because they only
require an exercise of our own minds and bodies, as Private
Prayer and Fasting; but, on the other side, those duties
which are to be performed by a community of men, personally
present and acting jointly and in concert with one another,
cannot be performed otherwise than at certain hours ; and
whoever therefore requires any such service to be performed
must by unavoidable consequence require it to be done at
certain hours, though he himself has not fixed those hours ;
for how can any numerous body of men meet and join in
the celebrating of any solemnity, unless some determined
hour be publicly known to be allotted for that purpose ?
Therefore both Christ, and our Church, has appointed the
Sacrament to be administered at certain hours ; and yet

OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD'S CHARGE. 381

these hours are not expressly determined either by our
Saviour or by our Ecclesiastical legislators ; and, by conse
quence, the Answerer cannot be justified, when he makes
those propositions equivalent, viz., " Christ commanded offer
ings to be made at certain hours," and " Christ hath by a
Divine command fixed those hours." And though it does
not concern my argument with this writer, yet I shall easily
be pardoned by my reader, if from this I take occasion to
infer, that St. Clement cannot here be understood of the
Jewish sacrifices in general ; for God did not either explicitly
or implicitly command the majority of them to be offered at
certain times or hours. None but the festival sacrifices and
those on the day of expiation were limited to any precise
days ; none but the Passover and the continual morning
and evening sacrifices had particular hours assigned for
their oblation. St. Clement mentions, in this Epistleg, "the
continual sacrifice, vows, offerings for sin, and trespass-
offerings :" none of these, except the first, were appropriated
to any certain hour by any express direction of the Levitical
Law; nay, there was nothing in the nature of these sacri
fices, that could make any certain day or hour necessary ;
for, generally speaking, they were offered by particular men,
not by a numerous congregation, as the Christian Sacrifices
ought to be ; and therefore, though the assignment of some
precise hour be necessary for the Oblation of the Eucharist,
yet it was not in any measure necessary for the generality of
the sacrifices offered by the Jews.

The sum of our writer's argument, which he would draw
from St. Clement's saying that "Our Lord hath determined
the times and hours" (as he falsely varies the words), is, that
he is not to be understood properly or literally, when he
speaks of 'Oblations' and ' Gifts :' but now, if this holy Father
does indeed speak strictly and justly, when he only says, as
he does, that " Our Lord has commanded the oblations and
services to be performed at determined times and hours,"
then the argument for the reality of the Oblation, drawn
from those words, stands in its full force. But let us for
once suppose that St. Clement speaks with some latitude and
impropriety, when he mentions " the determined times and

« b. p. 1. Ap.

382 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

hours ;" yet it cannot from thence be fairly inferred that he
uses the same latitude when he mentions ' Gifts' and ' Obla
tions/ except any man will suppose that he, who at one place
expresses himself loosely, can never be allowed to write or
speak properly ; and what then will become of our Answerer
and his works? If St. Clement be not to be understood
strictly, when he speaks of " determined times and hours ;"
yet I hope our writer will grant that he speaks strictly, when
he mentions ' Services' or ' Ministrations' to be performed in
the Christian Church. And these last words stand in con
junction with 'the Oblations' in the very same sentence;
and I am apt to believe that it will be very hard to shew
cause, why both are not to be taken in a proper literal
sense.

P. 41. Whereas Dr. Hickes had cited Tertullianh, as telling
us, that the Oblation of Bread and Wine was imitated in the
devotions of Mithra ; this Answerer cries out, " We are come
to a fine pass, when the doctrines of the Christian Sacra
ments must be learnt from the sentiments the heathen had
of them." Whereas it is evident, that Dr. Hickes argues not
from the sentiments of the heathen but from the affirmation
of Tertullian. " The devil," says he, " emulates the Divine
Sacraments themselves in the mysteries of the idols ; he
baptizes some — and if I yet remember, — Mithra celebrates
the oblation of bread."

P. 44. " I have shewed," says the Answerer, " that the verb
7Tpoo-<f)epa) signifies ' to pray for.' " He has indeed shewed his
good will to this purpose, as Dr. Hancock had done before ;
but he has in reality only shewed his own insufficiency. But
he adds, " If it signify ' to pray for,' then why not ' to con
secrate ?' " A most surprising argument, by which he may
prove it signifies whatever it is convenient for his hypothesis
to have believed. I deny not that ' to offer' does imply Con
secration, because whatever is offered to God is thereby se
parated to a holy use; but that ever it is used to signify
Consecration any otherwise than as it is included in Oblation
does not appear, and I am sure our writer has said nothing
toward the proof of it. In the next page he undertakes to
shew, that offero has the same signification in the Latin ;

11 r. p. 9. Ap.

OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD^ CHARGE. 383

but has nothing that looks like an argument, on this head.
He cites St. Cyprian, and particularly his Epistle to Csecilius,
to prove his sense of the word. I am not sure, what particu
lar passage he there aims at ; but I am very certain, that
this writer can never prove either of his meanings from that
Epistle. I will give him one demonstration to the contrary :
Christus Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem
quod Melchisedec obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, Suum sci
licet Corpus et Sanguinem'1. If offerre here signify ' to pray/
then Cyprian's words must be rendered : " Christ prayed
a Sacrifice to God the Father, and prayed the same that
Melchisedec had prayed, that is, Bread and Wine, viz.,
His own Body and Blood." ' To pray Bread and Wine' one
would think were sufficiently absurd. If he will have it
signify ' to consecrate/ then the Latin must be thus trans
lated : " Christ consecrated a Sacrifice to God the Father,
and consecrated the same that Melchisedec had conse
crated, that is, Bread and Wine, viz., His own Body and
Blood." Now if Christ only consecrated His Body and Blood
without offering them, then it must be said that, in St. Cy
prian's sense, Christ was no sacrificing Priest; nor will it
be possible for any man to use any words whereby to denote
an oblation, if offerre Sacrificium, offerre panem et vinum,
Suum Corpus et Sanguinem, will not amount to this meaning.
But the truth of the matter is, this writer pleads for a cause,
that he must be sensible can never be defended, until words
have lost their true sense or signification.

P. 45. But he has one citation from a modern writer,
whose authority I truly value ; I mean the learned and worthy
Regius Professor of Oxford k ; who, in his Discourse of Church
Government, p. 273, has these words ; " In the Fathers of the
next age" (after Ireuseus), " ' to consecrate the Lord's Supper'
is so constantly called Trpoafyepeiv in the Greek and offerre in
the Latin, [that is, ' to offer' it,] that it is needless to cite any
testimonies from them." Now this testimony is, in truth,
directly against our Answerer ; for the Professor turns TT/JOO--
(frepeLv in the Greek, offerre in the Latin, by the English
word ' to offer ;' whereas our Answerer would have them sig
nify ' to consecrate :' and in order to stifle so clear an evidence

* [Ep. 63.] u [i. e. Dr. Potter, afterwards Abp of Canterbury.]

384 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

and wrest it to his own. meaning, the words inclosed within
the hooks [ ] are by our writer thus falsified, viz., in Latin
offerre, ' to offer/ And it is further very apparent, that the
Professor thought, by saying this, he had proved the Eucharist
to be a Sacrifice in the judgment of the Fathers ; for his very
next words are these : " So that it is plain, both from the design
and nature of the Lord's Supper, and from the concurrent
testimony of the most primitive Fathers, who conversed with
the Apostles or their disciples, that it was reckoned through
the whole world a commemorative Sacrifice/' The conclu
sion, which our Answerer draws from these words, is quite
contrary to that which the author intended ; and I leave it
to my reader to judge, what it is that drives our adversaries
to such sorry prevarications. I beg the Professor's pardon,
if I misrepresent his thoughts, when I venture to explain the
words cited from him to mean no more than this, viz. that
"the familiar language of the Fathers, in using the phrase
of ' offering' the Eucharist, where we now say ' consecrate/
or f administer' it, shews that it was the received notion of
antiquity, that the Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice."
So, to give a parallel instance, any Divine, who intended to
prove the antiquity of the use of Chrism in Confirmation,
might say, that " the Fathers do so constantly use the word
' anoint' for what we now express by ' laying on of the Bishop's
hands' in Confirmation, that it is needless to cite any testi
monies." Now if any eminent Divine had thus expressed
himself on this subject, and some writer, to underprop a
sinking cause, had from thence inferred that the Greek
%pt'o> signified ' to lay on hands,' he had by this proved him
self to be a writer of the same size with our anonymous
Answerer.

P. 50, 51. This writer betrays so great a degree of injudi-
ciousness in what he has said concerning Irenaeus, that I per
suade myself, every reader that has considered what I have
cited from him in the foregoing book, or that pleases to turn
his eye to my Appendix, pp. 4 — 6, and consult my trans
cripts from him, will easily discern his palpable mistakes in
relation to this most primitive writer. When he would
evade what Irenseus says1 of " the Apostles' serving the

1 b. p. 4. A p.

385

Altar," by taking it for granted that he speaks figuratively,
he does tacitly confess, that, if Irenseus did indeed mean what
he said, his words are an unanswerable proof of the Eucha-
ristical Sacrifice. And if he will persist in his assertion, that
they, who affirm any Divine Truth and prove it by authority
either from Scripture or antiquity, are bound to demonstrate
that those authorities are to be taken in a literal sense ; let
him withal reflect, what advantage he gives to Quakers and
enthusiasts, who assert that every thing said of Water-
Baptism and the Eucharist is to be understood in a spiritual
sense, and not of those outward rites. Whereas on the other
side, according to all rules of equity, when any man denies
any authority to be literally taken, the proof of it lies upon
the denier ; for all writers are presumed to speak in a literal
sense, until the contrary be made appear by some very de
cisive argument.

The Answerer tells us, that Iren8eusm, " to shew that Chris
tians still offer mercy and good works and oblations of piety
and charity, adds, ' and (Christ) also, counselling His dis
ciples to offer unto God the first-fruits of His creatures, took
the Bread which is God's creature, and giving thanks said,
This is My Body, and taught this to be the new Oblation of
the New Testament/" And can an Answerer think that
he deserves a reply ? By such argumentations as these the
Quakers would persuade us out of both the Sacraments.
And if this writer will grant that postulatum to them, upon
which he builds his discourse in this place, viz., that " the
figurative sense is to be preferred to the literal," they may
safely challenge him to answer their cavils.

I have said thus much in reply to this book, not that I
thought it deserved or wanted a confutation, but only to
convince my reader of the poor shifts and thin palliations
that our antagonists are reduced to, when they undertake
to write against us. There is only one thing more I shall
take notice of in our Answerer's book ; which I rather do,
because so great a man as the Lord Bishop of Norwich"
has seemed to countenance it in the second Edition of his
Charge, p. 23, than that I esteem it worthy of my conside
ration on any other account. He would prove, p. 68, 69,

111 c. p 4. Ap. n [Dr. Charles Triranell.]

JOHNSON. (^ C

386 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE

that by ' Oblations/ in the Prayer " for the whole estate of
Christ's Church," is meant only ' alms/ because the Scotch
Liturgy calls the alms ' Oblations/ This indeed proves that
the Compilers of that Liturgy believed that alms were ob
lations; but, surely, it is far from proving that they or the
Reviewers of our Liturgy in 1661-2 did not think the Bread
and Wine to be Oblations also. Nay, this gentleman himself
confesses, that the Scotch Liturgy directed the elements " to
be offered up/' and therefore there can no doubt remain
but that they thought them proper Oblations too. And if
Archbishop Laud (to whose notes on the Common Prayer
Book our Reviewers "had a great regard/' as my Lord
Bishop of Norwich confesses) and the other Compilers of the
Scotch Liturgy did direct the elements to be " offered up,"
why may we not with reason believe that the alterations in
our Liturgy at the Restoration were intended for the same
purpose ? " Aye, but," says the Answerer, " they left out the
words 'offer up/ that is, they did not insert them;" but
though they do not direct them to be offered up in the
Rubric, they provided a clause, whereby to offer them up
together with the alms in the following Prayer. And if his
argument be good, that by omitting the words ' offer up' in
the Rubric they did not design the elements to be c Obla
tions/ then it may as justly be argued, that by omitting
the word ' Oblations' in the Rubric concerning the alms,
their meaning was, that they did not intend that alms
should pass under the name of ' Oblations / and that, there
fore, by l Oblations' in the Prayer for the Church Militant
they meant not the money given for the use of the poor.
In a word, we are very sure that the universal Church for
fifteen hundred years by the word ' Oblations' meant princi
pally the Bread and Wine ; and, I believe, our adversaries
would be hard put to it to produce one instance, where the
' Oblations' offered by the Priest in the Eucharistical Prayers
do not include the Bread and Wine. No man that is not
wholly destitute of temper as well as judgment can delight
in perpetuating a dispute about words. Nor is it worth
while to insist, that ' Oblations' here, in a prayer after the
Offertory and long before the Words of Institution, signify
only the Bread and Wine ; it is sufficient, that those elements

OP THE BISHOP OF OXFORD'S CHAEGE. 387

must be comprised, if not chiefly meant, by that word. For I
leave it to my reader, whether he will understand our Church
according to the Liturgic language of all ages past or ac
cording to the new glosses of our adversaries.

I take no notice of the citations, which this writer has
produced from the modern Bishops and Doctors. He had
even as good have quoted the Bishops of Oxford and Nor
wich ; for their authority is as great as that of any that the
Answerer has alleged, except that of Archbishop Laud, who
asserted the Sacrifice of the primitive Church, and whom he
therefore misrepresents, when he says that he placed the
Sacrifice " in breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine,"
p. 63; whereas his Grace expressly says, that "the Sacri
fice offered by the Priest is the commemorative Sacrifice
of Christ's Death, represented in Bread broken and Wine
poured out •" by which words he supposes the Bread already
broken, the Wine already poured out, before the Sacrifice is
offered ; and that therefore the Sacrifice does not consist in
breaking or pouring out the Bread or Wine. He treats
Archbishop Laud, as he has done the most ancient Fathers
and the Rev. Dr. Potter ; that is, he would make them con
tradict the Truth and themselves by forced and unnatural
constructions.

c c 2

ADVERTISEMENT.

IN a pamphlet lately published, entitled, " King Charles
the First's Bishops no Puritans," there is, by way of appendix,
a comparison drawn of some modern doctrines with the doc
trines delivered by Popish writers. There are two passages
in it, which I think deserve my notice.

The first is p. 31, under the title of ' the E/eal Presence/
(which is a word, that I do not remember that I ever used with
approbation.) Here this writer produces the following words
from The Propitiatory Oblation, p. 100, viz., "When he is
receiving the Holy Eucharist, he has the price of his Re
demption in his hand or lying before his eyes." In the op
posite column are the words of Harding in his book against
Bishop Jewell, intimating " the thing received in the Sacra
ment to be the very real Body of Christ." With Har ding's
words I am not concerned. As for my own expressions, I
do not think they need any justification with those that know
and believe the Church Catechism; for if "the Body and
Blood of Christ are verily and indeed received by the Faithful
in the Lord's Supper," then I suppose the price of their Re
demption is verily and indeed received by them. And as for
those who do not believe their Catechism, I shall only remind
them that they are guilty of an opinion, which St. Ignatius
thought to be heretical ; for " they do not confess that the
Eucharist is the Body of Christ, Which suffered for us,
and Which' the Father raised again by His goodness," c. 7.
ad Smyrn.

The other passage is p. 32, under the title of ' the Sacrifice
of the Eucharist/ The words, cited from The Propitiatory
Oblation, are as follows ; " The Bread and Wine in the Sacra
ment are by Consecration made a representation of the Great

ADVERTISEMENT. 389

Sacrifice on the Cross, and on that account ' propitiatory' in
the most proper sense." Now if by f propitiatory in the most
proper sense' I had meant, in that sense that the original
was so, and that the Papists must allow their Sacrifice to be
so, if it be the very substance of Christ's Body ; then I had
indeed been guilty of an inexcusable excess : but in the very
sentence here produced, and which is in the fifteenth page of
the Propitiatory Oblation, I only assert that it is made a
" representation of the Grand Sacrifice," and therefore pro
pitiatory only in virtue of That. And if this writer had been
pleased to have compared these words with those in p. 9, he
might have seen, that by ' propitiatory in the most proper
sense' I mean ' expiatory ;' for there I explain ' propitiatory'
as implying, 1st, The obtaining pardon for sin; 2ndly, Ren
dering 'the Divine Majesty more propitious. The first I call
the most proper sense, as I suppose all will allow it to be.
And again, p. 26, you have these words, viz., " Hitherto I
have been shewing that the Holy Eucharist is an Oblation,
whereby we do in general render God propitious to us ; but
I have before hinted that there is a more eminent sense of
the word, whereby it especially denotes Expiation and Atone
ment for sin." And in what sense the Eucharist is an expia
tory Sacrifice, I presume I have plainly enough shewed both
in the Propitiatory Oblation and in the Unbloody Sacrifice.
I find there is no security against such insidious adversaries,
except we repeat our explanations as often as we repeat our
terms, and multiply words while we are writing controversy,
as if we were drawing leases or conveyances. This writer,
p. 44, cites Dr. Pain for truly stating the nature of a pro
pitiatory Sacrifice, viz., that "it suffers a vicarious punish
ment in another's stead ;" but then how could a Mincha be
propitiatory and expiatory, as it certainly was, Lev. v. 11 — 13.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO PART II.

The following additions and corrections by the Author have not been
inserted in their proper places in the body of the work.

Book, p. 94, line 13, read " sacrifice!-."

P. 150, line 20, after " Sacrifice," add, " And Josephus in
this respect joins in with Plsilo. "O-rrws Be fAaXiara 6vovres
o-a)(f)pova)/A€v eVt rats- Bwiats, vTrep rrjs KOIVTJS ev^eaOac Set
TTpcorov (Twr^plas, elO* ifTTCp ectvTcov. Conlra Apion., lib. ii.
p. 1074, [Ed. Geneva, 1634; Ed. Hudson, p. 1380.]"

P. 157, margin, after Part I. add, pp. 135—139.

P. 277, after line 33, add this paragraph :

" It may seem strange to some, that I have not mentioned
fasting, as an exercise very proper to prepare men for the
Eucharist, and to express their reverence toward it. But it
is to be remembered that I take my rules of preparation
from the Primitive Church. They who communicated every
day could not prepare themselves for it by fasting the day
before, unless they had made their whole lives one continual
course of abstinence ; and they who received thrice, twice,
or once a week, had no reason to doubt but by abstaining
every Wednesday and Friday till three o'clock in the after
noon, (which was then the general practice,) they did what
was sufficient, as to this particular. Fasting has always been
thought a very proper exercise for Christians, whether they
communicate or not. And of the two, they who do not
communicate have the greatest reason to fast ; for they, by
their own confession, are unworthy of the Sacrament, and
therefore ought to look on themselves as in the state of
Penitence.

The Primitive Christians did for the most part celebrate
the Eucharist before day-light, and therefore most probably
took it upon an empty stomach ; yet there is no just cause
to believe that they thought this necessary, at least I am
not sensible that they tell us so. Tertullian, in his Treatise
of Fasting, says not a word on this head, though he was very
rigid as to the duty of fasting in general. But it is very

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO PART II.

probable,, that the custom of communicating before day-light
brought in this other practice of receiving the Sacrament in
their fasting spittle3. Toward the latter end of the fourth
century, it seemed a fault b to some to break one's fast on the
Communion -day before receiving the Sacrament ; and, soon
after, the Priest0 was forbidden to administer it after he had
eat or drunk. Yet even in the 5th century, somed whole
Churches chose to have their Communion in the evening,
and upon a full stomach : therefore the practice of the
Church was not always and everywhere the same as to this
particular. It is well known, that our Saviour first gave it
to the Apostles after Supper ; therefore to take it 011 an
empty stomach cannot be absolutely necessary. They who
find that abstinence exalts their devotion, ought by all means
to use it on this occasion, according to the best examples of
the fourth age of Christianity and of the following times.
But there are many who cannot communicate fasting with
out great uneasiness and indevotion, unless they could go
directly from their bed to the Altar; and these men must
indulge the cravings of an infirm nature, so far as to quiet
their spirits and preserve a due attention of mind in the
service of God. This I say especially in relation to those
Clergymen, who have crazy bodies, and have no assistance on
Communion-days. For they who are to speak for two hours
together with little intermission, will find by dear-bought
experience, that they destroy their own constitutions, if they
allow no supply to nature. And, indeed, we of this northern
climate are vain, if we pretend to imitate the old Eastern,
African, or Italian Christians in their fastings. Our air is
much more severe than theirs, and preys with a much
sharper edge on our spirits and vitals. But both Clergy and
people ought to confine themselves to what is barely suffi
cient to keep nature from sinking, and especially to abstain
from all intoxicating liquors, when they come to appear
before God.

a Tertullian ad Uxor., lib. ii. c. 6, ing it in public.

supposes, that the woman who had b See Responsa Timothei Alexandr.

carried home some of the Eucharisti- in Beveridge's Pandects, vol. ii. p. 169.
cal Bread would take it in the morn- c (Concil. Garth. 3. Act 6. Can. 29.

ing early, ante omnem cibum ; be- p. 51, Ap.)
cause this was then the time of receiv- d See Socrat. Histor., lib. v. c. 22.

THE

CONTENTS

OF THE FIRST PART.

Page
INTRODUCTION, containing several definitions of Sacrifice, with the Author's

opinion of them, and his own description of Sacrifice - 67

CHAP. I.

Shewing, in what sense and degree every particular mentioned in the

description of a Sacrifice are necessary properties of it - 72

SECT. I.

Sacrifice is some material thing, animate or inanimate. It must he mate
rial. It is not necessary that it he animate. Qveiv does not properly
signify ' to slay' - - - ib.

We dispute not for words. Ours an unhloody Sacrifice - - 77.

SECT. II.

Sacrifice is offered for the acknowledgment of the Divine dominion, and
other attributes of God, and for procuring Divine blessings, especially
remission of sin - - 78

SECT. III.

A proper Sacrifice is to he offered on a proper Altar ; though the Altar he
rather necessary for the outward decorum than the internal perfection
of the Sacrifice - - 79

SECT. IV.

That a proper Sacrifice must be offered by proper officers, and with agree
able rites - - 81
No rites necessary but the actions by which the Oblation is performed - 82

SECT. V.

A Sacrifice is to be consumed in such a manner as God, or the author of it,

hath appointed. Consumption by burning not absolutely necessary - 83

Manducation, a proper way of consuming sacrifice. This proved from the

Passover - - - - - - - -84

392 CONTENTS OF PART I.

Page
CHAP. II.

Shewing, that the Eucharist has all these five properties of a Sacrifice

strictly so called - - 86

SECT. I.

That material Bread and Wine, as the Sacramental Body and Blood of
Christ, are by a solemn act of Oblation to be offered to Almighty God
in the Eucharist ; and that they were so offered by Christ in the Insti
tution - - ib.
By Unbloody Sacrifice the ancients meant somewhat material - - 87
Rational Sacrifice may be material - 91
Spiritual Sacrifice may be material - 92
Ancients deny Bread and Wine to be corporeal Sacrifices - - - 93
The language of Scripture countenances this - 94
Rational and Spiritual may be applied to immaterial Sacrifice, Unbloody to

material only - 95

Method in proving a material Sacrifice - - ib.

Evidence from antiquity for a material Sacrifice in the Eucharist, first from

single Fathers - 96

From Councils - 105

From Liturgies - - 111

A prayer in the Constitutions, lib. vii. c. 25, considered - - 114

Evidence for the actual Oblation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, pro
perly so called - 117
Objection from St. Chrysostom on the Hebrews considered - - 121
The Fathers supposed that Christ offered in the Eucharist, and yet never

suppose that He offered twice - 122

That Melchisedec offered Bread and Wine - 123

St. Paul's silence concerning it considered - - 126

Melchisedec' s sacrifice, why not corporeal - 133

Our Saviour sacrificed in the Eucharist - 134

Therefore He is the High-Priest of our Homology - 139

Heretics of old allowed Sacrifice and Altar - 148

Evidence for the Sacrifice from Ignatius and Clement - - 150

But one Oblation in the Eucharist of old - 154

Christ's sacrificing in the Eucharist proved from the word 8iS6/j.fvov - 160

From TOVTO Trotetre, &c. - 170

The Sacrifice proved from 1 Cor. x. 16—21. - 172

We do not offer the Eucharist precisely for the same ends that Christ did - 176
Sacrifice in general never abolished - - ib.

Objections against the Sacrifice from Heb. ix. and x. - 177

Heb. x. 18 particularly considered - 211

That the 'perfecting' Heb. x. is not exclusive of further perfecting - - 218

The Apostle hints the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in that chapter - - 219

Christ the High-Priest of our Homology. - 221

Sub-section to Sect. I. .... - 226

1. Shewing that the Body and Blood offered in the Eucharist was the

Bread and Wine - - - - - - 228

CONTENTS OF PART I. 393

Page

This, the doctrine of single Fathers - - 228

Of Councils - - 235

Of Liturgies - - 236

2. Ancients believed the Eucharistic Bread and Wine to be types,

images, &c. - - ib.

3. Yet not such types as those under the Law - 238
The pre-eminence of the Eucharist as a type - 245
Difference of Baptism and Eucharist in this respect - - 248
Bread and Wine made types by a Divine power - - 250

4. Ancients believed the types to be the very Body and Blood - 251
In what sense Ignatius asserts the Body and Blood in the Eucharist - 256
Dr. Whitby's gloss on 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, considered - - 259
For what cause many of late not concerned to assert the Eucharist to

be the Body and Blood - - 263

Ancients believed the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood in power

and effect - 266

That the Holy Spirit is present with the symbols to render them the

Body and Blood in power - - 269

The Holy Spirit may operate on inanimate things - ib.

Proofs that ancients believed the symbols to be consecrated by the

Holy Spirit - - 273

This inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church of Rome - - 284

Old heretics allowed this - - 285

On what Scripture this was grounded - - 286

Ancients believed the Eucharist to be a mystery - - 296

What meant by ' spiritual receiving' - - 302

And by a spiritual Sacrifice - 303

By this we can distinctly say what we offer - - 304

Ancient Church believed not Transubstantiation - 305

How near Lutherans and Calvinists come to Transubstantiation - ib.

Treaty of Poissy - - 307

State of the dispute between Papists and Protestants - - 311

Primitive doctrine has the advantage of the Lutheran and Calvin-

istical - - 314

The opinion concerning two personal Bodies of Christ considered - 316
The occasion of modern mistakes about the Eucharist - 319

The consistence of the primitive doctrine of the Eucharist - - 321

5. The stress the ancients laid on the belief of Christ's spiritual Body

and Blood in the Eucharist - - 323

Primitive Church required an express belief of it - 325

Ancients concealed the nature of the Eucharist from all but commu
nicants - - 326

6. By what subordinate means the Bread was believed to be made the

Body and Blood . 329

1. By the Words of Institution - 330

2. By the Oblation - - 331

3. Consecration was completed by the Invocation of the Holy

Ghost - - 334

Oblation not finished till after Consecration - 340

The Heavenly Altar - - - - - - 341

396 CONTENTS OF PART I.

Page
That John vi. was generally understood of the Eucharist in the primitive

Church - 491

Proofs from Theodoret - - ib.

from Cyril of Alexandria, and the third general Council - - ib.

and from Gaudentius - - 493

from St. Ambrose - - ib.

from Macarius, Gregory Nyss., St. Basil, Optatus, St. Hilary - 494

from Cyril of Jerusalem, Firmicus, St. Cyprian - 495

from St. Irenaeus, and St. Ignatius - - 496

Eucharist the Flesh of Christ, contrary to Dr. Whitby's criticism - 499

The judgment of the primitive Church concerning John vi. - - 500

John vi. cannot rationally be understood of what Dr. Clagett calls ' spiritual

actions,' Dr. Whitby, ' faith' - -501

1st argument against the sense of this context - - - 502

2nd argument - - 505

3rd argument ----- - 506

John vi. cannot rationally be understood of eating Christ's natural Body by

faith - 507

1st argument against this supposition - - ib.

2nd argument - - - ib.

Both these opinions further disproved - 508

1st argument - - ib.

2nd argument - - - - -510

No absurdity follows, if John vi. be understood of the Eucharist - - 51 1

By ' Flesh' in John vi., and 'Body,' Matt. xxvi. 26, is meant the same thing 512

Positive proof that John vi. is meant of the Eucharist - - 514

This is the most obvious sense - - 515

1st argument for this sense - - ib.

2nd argument - - - - 516

3rd argument - - 517
4th argument - ib.
The objection, that Eternal Life is annexed to Christ's Flesh, is of no force - 519
What is our Saviour's meaning, when He says, " Take, eat," in the Insti
tution - 520
Eating Christ's Flesh can import no more in John vi. - - 521
Other objections considered - - 523
Testimony of the Bohemians - - 524
Paraphrase on John vi. - - - 529

THE

CONTENTS
OF THE SECOND PART.

INTRODUCTION

Page
Shewing, that Christ in the Eucharist offered or sacrificed Himself under

the symbols of Bread and Wine - 27

Christ was a real Sacrifice - ib.

A tradition that He was sacrificed only on the Cross - 28

Bloody sacrifices always offered while alive - - ib.

Christ offered Himself before His Crucifixion - 30

Before He went into the garden - - - - - 31

And upon His instituting the Eucharist - - 32

And then ordained His Apostles to be Priests of this Sacrifice - 33

The Sacrifice of Christ no Jewish sacrifice - 34

The Jews had no such representative sacrifice as the Eucharist - - 35

The time and company, in which Christ offered Himself, most proper - ib.

We are to do what Christ did in the Eucharist - - 36

1 Cor. x. 16 proves the Eucharist a Sacrifice - 37

And Heb. xiii. 10. - 38

And 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13. - - ib.

How Christ was but once offered • 39
The Sacrifice of the Eucharist does not render the Personal Sacrifice less

perfect - ib.

That there are sacrifices without blood - - 40

That the Eucharist is in effect called a Sacrifice in Scripture - 41

PART II. CHAP. I.

In which the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacri
fices of the ancients is considered, with an intention to shew that the
Eucharist is not the less a Sacrifice, because in some respects it differs
from the sacrifices of the ancients ; and tha t it is indeed a more excel
lent Sacrifice than theirs were.

SECT. I.

The Eucharist agrees with the most solemn sacrifices of the ancients in this,

that it is attended with a feast upon the things therein offered to God.
The Eucharist is a feast on a Sacrifice - - - - - 43

398 CONTENTS OF PART II.

Page

The practice of Jacob and Jethro - - - - -44

The Jewish sacrifices attended with a feast - - - 45

No part of the Passover was burnt - - - - - ib.

Jews' festivals consisted of sacrifices and feasts - - - - 46

All the flesh they eat in the desert first sacrificed - - 47

Gentiles feasted on sacrifices very early - - - - - ib.

This custom continued among them - - - - - 48

And even to the Apostles' time - - - - - - 50

Feasting was sometimes the chief end of sacrifice - - - - 51

The Gentiles in this not to be blamed - - ib.

Not the whole sacrifice, but part of it, generally eaten of old - 52

Eucharist wholly eaten, as being wholly for our benefit - - - 53

As being too worthy to be burnt - - 54

It is a sober feast - - - - - . - ib.

And strengthens the soul - - - 55

SECT. II.

The Eucharist agrees in the main with the most solemn sacrifices of the

ancients, as to the ends for which it is offered.
The ends and design of men in offering sacrifice have always been the same

in all ages and nations ; these are of two sorts,
First, particular,

1. Particular end of Sacrifice is to render a prayer the more acceptable - 57
The Gentiles had this notion of a sacrifice - - 58

2. Particular end, to express thanks - - 59
Sacrifices of thanksgiving were substantial things - - ib.

3. Particular end, was to expiate guilt, whether the Sacrifice were bloody

or unbloody - - 60
Secondly, general,

1. General end, the owning God's dominion - - 61
Gentiles had this notion - 62

2. General end, to procure the Divine favour - - ib.
Whether the beast died instead of the owner - - 63
Heathen thought all Sacrifice propitiatory - ib.
Extravagance of the heathen in this point - 65
The Eucharist serves all these ends - - 66
Though it be but one Sacrifice - 67

SECT. III.

One, and that the principal end in offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is,
to make a commemoration and representation of a greater Sacrifice : in
this it differs from the generality of the ancient sacrifices.

First end of the Eucharist is a commemoration - - ib.

All the virtue of it flows from this - 69

Ancient sacrifices received their value from that of Christ - ib.

Passover the only sacrifice of commemoration to Jews - - 70

Many Gentile sacrifices commemorations, not representations - ib.

Yet they had a sort of representative sacrifices - - 71

Ancients had no notion of a sacrifice, whose merits proceeded from another ib.

CONTENTS OF PART II. 399

Page

Bloody sacrifices can no more be an atonement by their own virtue than

unbloody ones - 71

All acceptable sacrifices ever received their virtue from that of Christ - 72

Eucharist is clearly discerned to be what it is - ib.

And was first and principally designed to be so - ib.

In which the Sacrifice of Christ is represented as already offered - - 73

And which is the Sacrifice of Christ in effect - ib.

SECT. IV.

Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of

the ancients, as to the substance therein offered.

Bread and fruit a most ancient Sacrifice - - ib.

Of Noah's offering cakes - 75

More unbloody than bloody sacrifices among the Jews - - ib.

And Gentiles - - 76

Drink-offerings used by Jews and Gentiles, and probably of mixed liquors - 77
Ancients, though they differed in the substances offered, yet agreed that

they were all sacrifices - - 78

They who deny bread to be a Sacrifice, contradict the ancients and even

Christ - - - - 81

Meal- offerings a type of the Eucharist - - 82

Difference between Meal-offering and Eucharist - - ib.

Meal-offering a type of the Eucharist, as most holy - 83

Wine offered in the heathen sacrifice, and some reserved for the feast - ib.

Wine mixed with water of old in the Eucharist - 84

The simplicity of the gross substances in the Eucharist - - 85

The dignity of the mysterious substance - - 86

SECT. V.

Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of
the ancients, as to the commendable qualities of the Sacrifice itself.

In treating of the qualities, I first shew,

1. What qualities have always been thought most excellent in Sacrifice.
And

1. Sacrifice ought to be of the best we have - - 87
This was the opinion of the heathen - - 88
A ' Sacrifice of Righteousness' is a 'large Sacrifice' - 89

2. That best, which is most agreeable to the will of God - - ib.
The care of the Gentiles in that point • - 90
Their uncertainty in this matter - 91
And their superstition - - 92

The qualities of Bread and Wine render them a pure Sacrifice - - 93

Especially as a representation of the great Sacrifice - t'6.

The Sacrifice of Christ pure, though bloody - ib.

The slaying of Him impure, therefore not performed by Himself - - 94

How our Saviour laid down His life - - - 95

400 CONTENTS OF PART II.

Page

SECT. VI.

Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of

the ancients, as to the manner in which it is offered.

No certain rite necessary to make a sacrifice - - - - 97

Slaying was not an act of oblation among the Jews - 98
Nor among the heathen - ..„.„&.

Sprinkling blood no essential rite of sacrifice - - 99
Burning, not necessary to make a sacrifice, according to the notion of the

Gentiles - -__._] 00

Burning considered as an act of acceptance, or an act of oblation - - 102

No sacrifice consumed by being offered - - ib,

Heathen looked on the burning, as the Divine acceptance - 103

Neither burning nor laying on the altar absolutely necessary - - 104

Cain and Abel's and Abraham's sacrifice, not offered by burning - - ib.

Nor the wave-loaves, nor scape-goat - - - - 105

Waving, not a necessary rite of sacrifice - - ib.

Nor scattering the salted cakes or corn - - 106

The great stress laid on meal- and drink-offerings by the Law - - ib.

Prayer was a rite of sacrifice used by Patriarchs, taught by Nature - - 107

Prayer used in sacrifice by the Jews - - 108

Jewish priests implicitly required to offer sacrifice by prayer - 109

Why there was no occasion for an express command 110

Gentiles always offered by prayer - - - - 111

Prayer the proper way of offering Sacrifice - - 113

Christ did so offer the great Sacrifice - 114

We are to offer the Eucharist by prayer openly pronounced - 115

This best fits the nature of the Eucharist - - - - -117

CHAP. II.

Of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist:
First, in general,

1. As an express institution of Christ - - 118
Though it is not an eternal duty, yet a necessary one - - - 119
The great stress which Christ lays on this duty, John vi. - - 120

2. As it is the only public proper Christian worship, and praying in

Christ's Name - - 121

The most primitive Church made this their constant principal worship - 123

A daily Eucharist during the Apostolical age - - 1 24

No public worship properly Christian but in the Eucharist - 125

All of old obliged to receive every Lord's Day - - 126
They who may receive and do not, a new sort of Christians, and no true

Christian worshippers - ib.
Commemoration of Christ's Death deserves to be the principal worship of

His Church - 127

3. As it is the most proper or only way for Christians to covenant and

communicate with God - - 128

Covenanting and communicating the same - ib.

CONTENTS OF PART II. 401

Page
These privileges, not personal, but belong to us as members of the

Church - - 129
In the Eucharist only, the Church covenants and communicates with

God - - - 130

Pardon sealed to Christians in the Eucharist - - 132

Grace assured and given in the Eucharist, - - 133

The Eucharist, an assurance of a happy resurrection - - 135

Obedience on our part necessary to be promised, as it is in the Eucharist 139

And charity, which is necessary for communion with each other - - 140

SECT. II.

Of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist,
2. In particular, considered as a Sacrifice : and

1. What is instituted as a Sacrifice, to be used as sacrificed - 141
Divine institutions not to be altered by us - 142

2. What is the principal worship of the Church has always been Sacrifice 143
(1.) Sacrifice was instituted by Divine authority - - ib.
Perhaps by the light of nature - - 144
Men might reason themselves into Sacrifice - - ib.
(2.) Others think it a positive Divine institution - 145
These two suppositions more probable than that it was invented by rude

men - - 146
(3.) If it were of human invention, yet it was established by Divine

authority - - ib.

And that before the Law of Moses - 148

God intended it to be the most excellent worship - 150

1. As implying prayer and praise - - ib.

2. As adding force to it - - 151
Prayer and praise absurdly preferred to Sacrifice - 154
God never abolished Sacrifice - - 156

Not Psalm xl. 6 ; Heb. x. 5, 6. - ib.

Not Psalm 1. 9—13. - - 157

Not Psalm li. 16. - - 158

Not Isaiah i. 11—15. - 159

Not Isaiah Ixvi. 3. nor Jer. vi. 19, 20. nor Jer. vii. 22. 160, 61

Not Hosea vi. 6. nor Amos v. 21. - - 162

Not Micah vi. 6 — 8. - - ib.

Obedience better than Sacrifice - - 163

Obedience better than prayer - - - 164

Better not to sacrifice than to offer what is forbidden or not commanded - ib.

All Sacrifice but the Eucharist abolished - 165

Or made useless - - 166

A recapitulation - ib.

Sacrifice necessary as well as obedience - 167

Praying in Christ's Name without the Eucharist, not so available as

with it - ib,
3. If Sacrifice was always the most proper way of covenanting and com
municating with God, then it is so still - - 168
God ever communicated with His Church by Sacrifice - - ib.

402 CONTENTS OF PART II.

The Eucharist intended as a means of communicating with God, and

therefore made a Sacrifice - - - 169

Sacrifice in itself the most proper means of communicating with God - ib.
This applied to the Eucharist - -171

Communion hetween Christians exercised in the Eucharist - - 172

Christ hy the Eucharist designed a most perfect union among Christians 174
4. Whether Oblation be necessary to the consecration of the Eucharist - 175
Grotius's fancy, that Christ kept the Passover as a feast only - - 177

This Sacrifice of the Eucharist does not impair the merits of Christ's Blood 178

SECT. III.

Of the necessity of a frequent Eucharist

Pastors bound often to administer it - - 180

Spiritual eating of Christ's extra Coenam, a false notion, as commonly under
stood _..._.. 182
Christ designed frequent communion - -184
Frequent communion necessary, because this is the most proper Christian

worship - - - 186

Christians obliged to be more frequent in their Sacrifice than the Jews were 187
Especially because here we commemorate Christ's Death according to His

will - . . - 189

Prequent communion necessary, as a means of covenanting and commu
nicating with God -_•_ _ _ -190
And with each other - - - - - ib.
As it is a seal of pardon - - - - - 191
And a means of grace - - - 192
And of a happy resurrection - 193
As it" is an obligation to holiness - - 194
And the most proper way to prevent relapses into sin - 195
The objection, That familiarity breeds contempt, considered - ib.
Low notions of the Eucharist, one cause of unfruitfulness in the use of it - 197

CHAP. III.

Of the Unity of the Eucharist.

I. The Eucharist One, as it represents One Body of Christ - 199

II. As sanctified by the same Spirit - 201

III. As the effects are the same in worthy receivers - - ib.

IV. As the manner ought to be the same in the main - - 202
Kiss of charity, mixed Cup, Oblation of elements by communicants, com
mendable rites - - ib.

More necessary rites,

Priests' placing Bread and Wine on the Altar, Sursum corda, Trisagium, &c. 206

Rehearsing Words of Institution - 207

Breaking Bread, pouring out Wine - - 208

Offering the symbols in commemoration of Christ's Death - ib.

Invocation of the Holy Ghost - - 209

Intercession for all Christians and men - - 210

Lord's Prayer not necessary to consecration - , - - 212

CONTENTS OF PART II. 403

Page

Nor the Creed, Confession, and Absolution - - 213

Nor Psalms and Hymns - ib.

Distribution, a necessary rite - -214

V. As the Priests are, or ought to be, One by commission - - 215
Presbyterians are schismatics, though Presbyters had power to ordain - 217
Orthodox people are One with the Priest - - 219
But not heretics - ib.
Nor schismatics - ib.
The Eucharist of such is null - - 220

VI. In what sense the place for the Eucharist is One - 221

CHAP. IV.

Of Excommunication.

What it is - 225

Instituted by Christ - ib.

Administered by Bishops - - 22(>

Passed on none but communicants of old - - 227

Inflicted for none but gross errors in faith or practice - ib.

The error must be attended with obstinacy - - 228

What men lost by excommunication - 229

It was always passed in the assembly for worship - - ib.

What share the people had in this censure - 230

Bishop, Clergy, and people, sufficient to inflict excommunication - - ib.

Pastors chiefly concerned to see it inflicted - 232

The meaning of ' delivering to Satan' - - ib.

Not inflicting diseases - - 233

The severity of this sentence of excommunication - - ib.

Deserters under the effect of an excommunication - - 235

And such as were bred in heresy and schism - ib.

Who were finally cut off or excommunicated - 236

Common offenders, how reconciled - - 237

Deferring repentance increased the weight of the censure - - 238

Penitents, not forbid the company of the Faithful - - 239

Ancient penance, what - - 240

Heretics and schismatics admitted without penance - 241

The Absolution of the Priest, what - ib.

How they were perfectly and finally absolved - - 242

Giving the Sacrament once upon a death-bed, not a perfect Absolution - ib.
To the Church excommunication necessary for the discouragement of vice

and evil - 243
Civil punishments of Christian magistrates do not make it unnecessary - 244
Excommunication intended to be a guard and fence to the Eucharist - 245
The regard paid of old to the Eucharist best explains the nature of excom
munication - - 247
The benefit intended to the offender by excommunication - 248
Especially in regard to the world to come - - 249
Eucharist, no benefit to evil men - - - - - -251

The long penances, very beneficial - .„_.&.

Excommunication necessary to preserve men from the infection of vice - 254

D d2

404 CONTENTS OF PART II.

Page

Great prudence necessary to the administration of it - 254
Excommunication corrupted by new Ecclesiastical courts - 255
By extravagant penances - - ib.
By commutations of penance - - ib.
By absolving before penance was begun - - ib.
By communicating men under penance - - 256
By repetition of excommunication and penance - - ib.
By Bishops' leaving this business to others - - ib.
By turning excommunication into a curse - ib-
In order to recover discipline we should first endeavour to rectify our doc
trine - - - - - - - - ib.

CHAP. V.

Of Preparation for the Communion - - 258

Perfumes and other proper additions to the ancient sacrifices rendered them
more acceptable

I. Necessary preparation for the Eucharist is Baptism - - 259

II. Necessary preparation is either,

I. To have preserved Baptism undefiled, which is best, and that

1. As to faith - - 260

2. As to practice - - 261
Sins of necessary infirmity do not defile Baptism - ib.
Nor all lesser known sins, as causeless anger - - ib.
Nor lesser injuries, which proceed not from malice - 262
But apostasy defiles Baptism, and for ever excludes from Communion - 263
Presumptuous acts of sin defile Baptism, and make us unfit for the

Eucharist - ... 264

And so do all habits of sin - ib.
Danger of receiving the Sacrament in these cases - 265

All wilful sin does for a while render men unfit for the Eucharist - ib.

II. Or else to have cleansed ourselves by repentance from these defilements.
Repentance only can restore men to the use of the Eucharist - - 266
Repentance of old attended with fasting and alms - 267
With public confession in the face of the Church - 268
And it was very long - ... 269
This was the only long preparation for the Eucharist - - 270
This repentance not unnecessary - 271
Because in the Eucharist we profess a pure religion - - ib.
And to be in covenant and communion with God - - ib.
And to present ourselves to God - - ib.
The nature of Sacrifice requires purity - - - ib.
Primitive Christians publicly confessed their private sins - 272
Danger of receiving unworthily no excuse for wilfully abstaining - 273

III. Resolving against sin for the future necessary to fit us for the Eucha

rist as a covenant - - 274

Sins after receiving not unpardonable - - 275

IV. Inward and outward reverence necessary to make us worthy commu

nicants.
Inward reverence proved necessary - ib.

CONTENTS OF PART II. 405

Page

And outward reverence - - - -277

Particularly in our bodily posture - - ib.

V. A competent knowledge of the nature of the Eucharist necessary to make

us worthy communicants :
Particularly, what is the meaning of the Eucharist or of Blessing the

Bread and Cup - _ ib.

The true method of administering the Eucharist - 280

The benefit of worthy receiving - - ib.

VI. Self-examination on the foregoing heads is necessary to render our

selves worthy communicants - 281

Devotions for the Altar - 282

[Bishop Poynet's testimony - - 303

Animadversions on Dr. Wise's book, called The Christian Eucharist

rightly stated - 321

Reflections on the Answer to the exceptions against the Bishop of Oxford's

Charge - - 371

Advertisement in relation to a pamphlet, entitled, King Charles's Bishops

no Puritans] - 388

[The bracketted portion of the Contents has been reserved from the First Part
of the First Ed. of Johnson.]

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.

Whenever I cite the Fathers, or any ancient monument of the Church con
tained in the Appendix to the First Part, I do it in the same manner as in the for
mer volume ; and therefore refer my reader to the advertisement immediately
before the introduction to Part the First : thus, for instance, in page 62, line 3,
of this Second Part, I cite St. Augustine, and add in the text (I. p. 36. Ap.) that
is to say, at the letter I in the 36th page of my Appendix to the First Part, and
there accordingly you will find the Latin words of St. Augustine.

AN INDEX

OF THE SCRIPTURES EXPLAINED OR CITED IN BOTH PARTS OF THE UNBLOODY

SACRIFICE: a DENOTES THE FIRST PART, b THE SECOND, * THE EPISTLE

PREFATORY TO THE FIRST PART, f THE PREFACE TO THE SECOND.

[As the Prefaces to both Parts are paged uniformly with the volume in the
present Edition, this distinction becomes obviously unnecessary ; but it has been
found convenient to retain it.]

GENESIS.

xxiii. 1 8.

a 84, 6 52

xxiv. 4, 5.

a 195

iv.

3—5.

a 76

5,6.

6 85

ib.

673

5—8.

6 148

7.

b 145

xxv. 40.

f!6

viii.

21.

b 27,64

xxviii. 38.

a 187

20, 22.

657

xxix. 1,9.

a 183

ix.

8, 9.

a 194

9, 29, 33.

a ib.

xii.

8.

b 107

10.

b 29

xiii.

4. a

413, b 107

36.

a 185

xiv.

18.

a 122, 6 75

42.

6 187

11, 16, 24.

a 125

xxxii. 6.

a 94, 6 37

XV.

9—18. a 124,

b 104, 148

15.

648

xxi.

33.

b 107

xxxii. 30. a

396, 6 109

xxii.

9.

« 79, 124

xxxiv. 15.

648

xxvi.

25.

b 107

25.

a 84, 6 52

xxxi.

45—54.

b 172

xxxviii. 1, 2.

6 149

54.

644

xlii.

26.

a 348

xlvii.

22.

a 81

LEVITICUS.

xlviii.

14.

b 110

i. 2—5.

628

4.

663

EXODUS.

4, 15.

6 110

5, 11.

a 448

iiL

12—18.

b 148

9.

627

iv.

23.

661

9, 13.

6 64

V.

1—3.

644

i. ii. iii. chapters per totum.

676

3.

6 61

ii. 1—4. .

a 432

viii.

8, 20, 26.

679

2—12.

664

X.

25, 26.

6 148

2, 13, 14.

6 82

xii.

7.

6 104

3.

683

8,9.

6 46

5.

a 531

9.

a 84

5, 10.

682

22.

a 80

9.

a 171

27.

«84

11. (misprinted 17.)

6 104

26, 27.

a 91, 6 70

11.

6 79

(misprinted xiii.)

13. 6 65, 74, 77

48.

7; 2-39

iii. 1 , 2.

6 28

xiii.

2.

6 149

2,8.

a 448

xviii.

12.

6 44

5. 6

27, 45, 64

xix.

6.

683

6, 8.

6 357

XX.

2*.

6 149

9, 10.

a 83

AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

407

iii.

8, 13.

6 110 xvii.

11. a

390, 392, 6 63

11.

a 334, 531

xix.

5,8.

a 85

iv.

4.

a 448

9, 17.

. .. a 188

4, 13.

6 110

8.

a 445, 531

5—35.

a 390

xxi.

6.

a 334, 531

11—21.

6 46

10.

a 183

6,17.

a 395

6—21.

a 334

13, 14.

a 438

22.

a 446, 6 83

14.

6358

xxii.

18, 19.

a 139

13—29.

628

23.

688

20—35.

a 191

25.

a 531

27, 35.

a 83

29.

a 380, 6 59

26, 35.

635

xxiii.

1, 8, 16. a 438, per tot. b 59

23, 33.

to.

17.

£82

V.

2.

b 76

16, 17.

6 105

11.

a 437

xxiv.

6,7.

a 171,432

11—13.

671

xxvii.

9.

a 435

2, 6.

a 188

6, 18.

6 109

vi.

13.
12, 13.

661
6 102

NUMBERS.

vii.

14, 30.
15, 21.
17.
25, 29.
27.
per tot.

a 85
627
a 445
a 531
a 333
a 85

o o

iii.
vii.

X.
XV.

xvi.
xviii.

3.
13—87.
10.
2—12.
47.
1.

a 183
a 76
690
675
6 109
a 187

.
6.
12—15.
13.
15.

a oo
a 332, 531
a 380
6 82
6 59

17.
13, 20.
13.
22.

'6 149
a 191
6 271
6 164

viii.

17.
20.
9.

6318
6 272
6 121

xxi.

xxiii.

9.
1—30.
24.

a 130
6 50
a 468

10, 14.
14.
14, 18.

6 83
629
6 110

XXV.

xxviii.

2.
4.
5.

6 48
6 187
a 437

ix.

31, 32.
33.

7.
22.

6 318
a 183
6 109
6 153

xxviii.
xxix.
xxix.
xxxiii.

| per tot.

2, 3, 5, &c.
15—50.

659

6 106
6 224

24.

6 63, 102, 104

X.

22.
3.

a 124
a 204

DEUTERONOMY.

1—8.

6 271

xiv.

12—31.

a 188

ix.

8.

a 194

19, 20.

a 185

X.

8.

6 153

XV.

20—31.
15—30.

a 208
a 188

xii.

16.
6, 17.

6 360
a 435, 139

31.

6 272

26.

a 435

xvi.

2.

6 110

27.

a 438

3,6.

a 205

XV.

19, 20.

6 149

6, 15.

a 184

xvi.

11, 14.

6 55

16.

a 196

xxi.

5.

6 153

20.

10, 15.

a 189
6 29

xxxii.
xxxiii.

38.
19, (misprinted

6 64
12.) 6 89

27.

646

xxxiv.

9.

6 110

5, 10.

6 99

5—22.

6 105

xvii.

6.

627

JOSHUA

3,6.

647

9.

6221

xxii.

19—27.

a406, 6 172

408

AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

JUDGES.

xxxiii

. 16.

a 380, 6 59

XXXV.

7—9.

6 51

xiii.

20.

a 79

11.

a 80, 6 104

1 SAMUEL.

EZRA.

ii.

25.

6109

vi.

9,10.

6 58

iii.

14.

b 60

vi.
vii.

5 — 17, (misprinted 57.) b 80
9. b 107

NEHEMIAH

ix.

12, 13.

647

13.

6278

X.

34.

6 258

xiii.

9.

697

xiii.

31.

ib.

11, 13.

6164

12.

657

XV.

15.

688

JOB.

xvi.
xxvi.

22.
5—11.
19.

6 164
646
660

xiii.

7—9.

8.

657
6 148

PSALMS.

2 SAMUEL.

iv.

5.

689

vi.

17, 19.

647

xviii.

23.

6 269

xii.

13. a

186, 396

XX.

4.

6 102

XV.

7—12.

689

xxii.

25, 26.

6 56

xxiv.

17—25.

6 57

xxiii.

5.

a 475

25.

6 158

xxvi.

6,7.

6 152

xxvii.

(misprinted xxxii.) 6. 6 90

xl.

6.

a 205

1 KINGS.

-

6114,156

xliii.

4.

6 152

iii.

15.

647

1.

5.

664

viii.

22—54.

6 152

9—13.

6 157

64, 65.

6 47

14.

6 158

xviii.

24. b

102, 151

14, 23.

a 379

li.

16—19.

6 158

17.

a 374

2 KINGS.

18, 19.

689

Iviii.

5.

6 350

iii.

27.

6 162

Ixi.

5.

a 373

Ixix.

31, 32.

a 384

—

6154

1 CHRONICLES.

Ixxiv.

8.

6 187

ci.

2.

6 159

xvi.

4—41.

a 381

cvi.

30.

6 109

xxi.

26. a 374, 381

cvii.

22.

«380

ib. b

104, 107

ex.

4.

[a 99.] 6 30

17.

6 57

cxvi.

17.

a 380

28.

b 159

cxli.

2.

6 362, 151

xxii.

1.

6 159

xxiii.

13.

6 153

ISAIAH.

2 CHRONICLES.

i. (misprinted 1.) 12.

6246

11—15.

6 159

vii.

1. b 63,

102, 104

vi.

7.

a 186

12.

6 150

xliii.

23.

6 61, 258

xxix.

31. a 380,

6 30, 59

liii.

10.

6 114

26, 28.

6 108

Ivi.

7.

6 150

XXX.

18, 19.

6177

Ivii.

7.

648

27.

6 153

Ixvi.

3.

6 161

AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

409

JEREMIAH.

APOCRYPHA. 1 ESDRAS.

vi.

19, 20.

6 161

vi. 29—31.

6 58

20.

6 258

vii.

22, 23.

6 161

2 ESDRAS.

xvii.

26.

641

xxxi.

33, 35.

a 209-10

ii. 38, 40.

6 260

xliv.

25. a

223, 140

JUDITH.

EZEKIEL.

ix. 1.

6 152

xviii.

11.

6 48

xxiii.

40, 41.

648

ESTHER.

xli.
xliii.

22.
26.

a 408
630

xiv. 17.

6 84

xliv.

16.

a 408

xiv.

15, 17.

663

WISDOM.

xlvi.

12. a

141, 641

ix. 8.

f 16

xviii. 9.

6 149

DANIEL.

21.

6 109

i.

7.

6 84

ECCLESIASTICUS.

HOSEA.

xxxv. 2.

a 391

iv.
vi.
xiv.

8.
6.
2.

a 532

6 162
a 382

3, 4.
l.f (misprinted i.)
11—19.
14—19.

a 396

6 108
6 152

JOEL.

20, 21.

6 153

ii.

14.

6278

BARUCH.

AMOS.

i. 6, 13.

6 £7

iv.

5. a 380,

141, 6 41

1 MACCABEES.

V.

25.

6 73, 76

21.

6 162

iv. 56.

a 380

52, 56.

a 358

JONAH.

2 MACCABEES.

ii.

8,9.

a 381

i. 23—30.

6 108

MICAH.

ST. MATTHEW.

vi.

6, 8.

6 162

7.

6 60

v. 20—22.

t 15

ZECHARIAH.

„„ \ a 373, 409,
Z6' / 6 140, 204,
vi. 6.

354, 378,
263.
6 212

iii.
xi.

4.
17.

a 186
a 457

19, 20.
x. 20.

xiii. 47, 48.

a 293
ib.
a 471

xiv. 19.

6278

MALACHI.

xv. 36.

ib.

xvi. 21.

a 510

i.

7,12.

a 408

xviii. 1, 19, 20.

6 121

10,11. a [87,] 371, 6 351

15, 16.

6 227

11.

6 82, 221

18.

6 225

14.

688

xix. 15.

6 110

ii.

2,3.

6278

xxi. 25.

a 524

iii.

3.

b 90

xxiii. 9.

a 294

410

AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

xxiii.

19.

a 79

vi.

54, 55. a 533,

6 136,281

xxvi.

8.

b 262

56.

6 131, 191

20,21.

b 277

63

a 287

26, 27.

b 277, 278

6 133, 280

ib. a 160, 286, 473, 474, 485

vii.

16

a 294

28.

a 161

viii.

56

a 133

ib.

b 131, 132

X.

9.

a 182

29.

b 84

17, 18.

b 95

31.

b 36

xiii.

1.

a 184

34.

b 275

xiv.

6.

a 182

xxviii.

19, 20.

b 259

ib.

b 132

xvi.

16—29.

6 122

xvii.

8, 11.

6215

ST. MARK.

9, 26.

6 123

11.

6 215

V.

23.

b 110

17, 19.

6 121

40.

6277

19.

a 184

vi.

5.

b 110

20.

6 30

41.

6278

xviii.

1.

6 32

viii.

6,7.

ib.

xix.

26.

6 36

ix.

49.

b 74, 76, 121

34, 35.

f6

xii.

39.

b 163

XX.

21.

6215

xiv.

22.

6278

23.

6225

22, 23.

a 286

24.
25.

a 161
684

ACTS.

ib.

632,131

i.

14.

6 124

XV.

44.

696

ii.

23.

6 94

xvi.

18.

6 110

41.

6221

42.

6 123, 208

iii.

15.

694

ST. LUKE.

iv.

4.

6221

V.

14.

ib.

L

4.

f 12

30.

b 94

10.

a 439, 6 152

vii.

42.

673,76

17.

6 312

viii.

19.

6 110

ix.

16.

6278

X.

4.

a 341

xii.

4, 5.

a 294

9—16.

a 469

xiv.

12, 13.

ib.

39.

694

xxii.

18.

684

xiii.

1,2.

666

19, 20.

a 161, 167

11.

6 233

a 286

XV.

29.

6 50, 79

6 32

xviii.

25.

f!2

6 131

xix.

2—6.

ib.

ib.

6 208, 278

6

b 110

XX.

7.

6 123

28.

6 129, 208

ST. JOHN.

xxiv.

17.

a 436

xxvi.

7.

6 187

ii.

19.

a 130

iii.
iv.

14.
20, 21.

16.
6 221

ROMANS.

21.

a 294

iii.

25.

a 394

V.

31, 32.

ib.

V.

2.

a 181

vi.

15.

a 530

vi.

10.

a 202

27—63.

a 457, 528

16, 18.

6132

.

f 18

xvi.

16.

6 203

11.

6 345, 278

17.

6235

11,23.

a 339

33.

a 448

1 CORINTHIANS.

41.

6 278

47.

« 532, 6 135

iii.

1,2.

a 129

48, 49.

a 532, 6 135

8.

6216

AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

411

iv.

18, 19.

b 248

GALATIANS.

V.

2.

b 229

3.

b 226

i. 4.

627

2—6.

6 248

ii. 20.

ib.

2—11.

6 229

iv. 22.

a 131

2-13.

b 233

26.

a 198

5.

6247

vi. 15.

a 131

7,8.

z'6.

X.

1.

a 356

1, 2.

a 95, 242

EPHESIANS.

2.

a 275

2,3.

a 320

i. 3.

a 198

3.

« [95,] 530

23.

6 129

4.

a [95,] 464

ii. 6.

a 196

4,7.

a 174

18.

a 181

7, 14.
7,21.

637

6 83

11, 22. a
iii. 12.

304, 466
a 181

16.
16, 21.
17.

18, 20.

6 208
a 172,259
6 130, 191
b 170

v. 2. a

25, 30.
26, 27. b

160, 6 27
6 129
130, 261

18—21.

£37

18.
21.

a 339
a 408, 449

PHILIPPIANS.

25—28.

6 53

xi.

17—34.

b 124

iv. 4.

637

18.

6276

18.

a 436

21.

to

22—34.
24.

ib.

a 161, b 32

COLOSSIANS.

24, 25.

a 286

ib.

b 278

ii. 17.

6 165

25.

a 170, f 18, b 208

iii. 15.

6 129

26.

6118, 128

27.

b 246, 277

29.

a 452

1 THESSALONIANS.

34.

f 12

xii.

13.

a 287, 464

v. 25.

6203

ib.

6 55, 133, 191

xiv.

16.

a 440

XV.

6.
45.

a 202
a 94, 292

2 THESSALONIANS.

xvi.

20.
22.

b 203
6250

iii. 14.

6235

2 CORINTHIANS.

1 TIMOTHY.

ii.

7.

b 249

i. 20.

6 233

iii.

V.

vii.

17.
21.
ib.

5—7.

7.
10.

a 292
a 369
b 27
6 248
6 249
b 269

ii. 1, 2.
iv. 14.
v. 22. b
vi. 12, 13.
ib.
12—20.

6 66
6218
110, 218
a 223
638
f 20

11.

6 267

viii.

1.

a 389

ix.

13.

a 222

2 TIMOTHY.

X.

6.

6 267

xii.

18.

b 216

i. 13, 14.

f20

21.

6 230, 252

ii. 2.

f ib.

xiii.

1,2, 10.

b 232

19.

6271

12.

6 203

iii. 14.

t 20

412

AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

TITUS.

xiii. 9.

a 389

10.

a 193, 6 38

ii.

14.

b 27

15.

a 381, 391

iii.

11.

6235

ST. JAMES.

HEBREWS.

v. 15.

a 225

ii.

5.

a 190

16.

6268

10.

a 183

11.

a 184

1 ST. PETER.

iii.

1.

a 139, b 39

iv.

14, 16.

a 182, 222

ii. 5. a

304, 6 350

v.

1.

a 123

9.

683

12, 13.

a 129

24.

a 163

vi.

2.

b 110

v. 1.

6275

4.

6 252

5. a

190, b 235

5,6.

6 236

2 ST. PETER.

vii.

2—24.

7.

a 127
a 134

ii. 3.

6276

27. a

184, [202]

iii. 2.

f 10

ib.

a 202

-

3.

a 123

1 ST. JOHN.

ix.

7.

a 164

14.

6 114

i. 6.

6275

14, 26.

627

iii. 16.

695

16.

b 360

v. 16.

6 235

19.

a 85, 133

22.

b 72

2 ST. JOHN.

23.

f6

25, 26.

a 163

10.

6241

28.

«6.

ix. and

X.

x. per tot.
1,2.

a 177, 226
639

ST. JUDE.

5—9.

6.
10.

a 177
6 114,157
b 166
«207

3. a
12.
23.

201, 6 129
6 252, 276
6259

ib.

633

18.

a 202

APOCALYPSE.

22.

6 128, 271

23.

639

i. 10.

6 252

26.

6235

ii. 14.

651

xi.

4. a 76, b 74,

76, 87, 146

iii. 4.

6 259

17.

a 456

xvi. !5.

6 ib.

28.

t 17

xxii. 1, 2, 14.

6260

xii.

24.

675

xviii. 12.

6258

INDEX RERtTM.

N. B. a DENOTES THE FIRST PART, b THE SECOND PART; * THE EPISTLE PRE
FATORY TO THE FIRST PART, f THE PREFACE TO THE SECOND PART.

Abel's sacrifice, whether bloody, b 74.

whether offered by fire, b 104.

whether offered by light of na
ture, b 144, 145.

• his sacrifice spake, a 371.

Absolution, how misused by Papists,
b, 133, 192.

not necessary before the Com
munion, b 213.

of old only prayer, b 241.

Adam, not immortal without the fruit

of the tree of life, b 136.
Adoration of the Sacrament unlawful,

b 315, 316.
Ainsworth asserts unbloody Sacrifices,

641.
Allegorical sense of Scripture, a 461,

467.

taken for the true, by some

moderns, a 517.

Alone, often to be supplied in Scripture,
a 293, 294.

Altars, the several sorts of them, a 79.

in what degree necessary to Sacri
fice, a 80, 402-3.

Nazianzen's mystic Altar, a

100-1.

• Communion-Table, properly so

called, a 402-5.

sometimes of old without fire,

b 52,53.

- commonly imports Sacrifice, a
406-7.

Altar Christian, was not only for re
ceiving lay-Oblations, a 409.

not so called as a centre of unity

only, a 410-11.

not only as a bier of the Body of

Christ, a 411.

not only for offering prayer and

praise, a 412.

in what sense One, b 222-4.

its place in the primitive Church,

a 447-8.

Altar heavenly, a 341.

Altar heavenly, does not disprove Altar

on earth, f 16.
Amen, the import of it at receiving the

Eucharist, a 325-6.
Anathema, the import of it, b 235.
Andronicus, Praefect of Ptolemais, how

dealt with, b 229-233.
Apostate has no offering for sin, a

214-15.

cannot be received to Com
munion, b 236.

Apostles, when consecrated, b 30, 31.

the most proper witnesses of

Christ's Sacrifice, b 36.

forbade Christians to eat heathen

sacrifices, b 50.
did not celebrate the Communion

before the descent of the Holy Ghost,

b 123, 4.
Arminianism imputed to Archbishop

Laud, * 21.
Arminians1 notion of the Eucharist,

a 312-13.
Athenians first offered only unbloody

sacrifices, b 77.

their doubts, what sacrifice to

offer, b 91, 2.

Atonement implies prayer, b 108, 9.

B.

Baptism, how it purges from dead

works, a 192.

called Salvation, a 490.

the effects of it, a 248-9.

how kept pure, how defil ed, b 257,

266.
why previously necessary to the

Eucharist, a 265, b 130, 258.
how God had regard to the hea
then in the institution of it, b 52.
Barclay, ( Robert,) his notion of Christ's

Flesh, a 320.
Belief of Christ's Sacramental Body,

necessary of old, a 323-6.
Believing, without Sacraments, makes

not a perfect Christian, a 490.

414

INDEX RERUM.

Sennet, (now Dr.,) mentioned with
honour, a 156.

Beryllus, why not excommunicated,
b 228.

Beveridge, (Bp.,) his sense of offering
first-fruits, f 22, 23.

Beza gravelled hy the Papists, a
307-9.

Bier, see Altar.

Bishops and Priests proper Sacrificers,
a 418-25.

One by commission, b 215, 17.

guardians of the Altar and Sacri
fice, * 1, a 431.

have the power of excommunica
tion, a 431, b 227, 232.

Bishops how ordained of old, b 34.

principally concerned to restore

frequent Communion, b 180, 181.

their greatest difficulty was disci
pline, b 235, 241, 255.

laid hands on Penitents, b 241.

Blessing grounded on Sacrifice, a 124,
b 152, 3.

• how it made atonement, b 63.

therefore Communion must end

with a blessing, 6215.

Bread and Wine, what it means,

f 17, b 207, 277, 9.

Blood, the sprinkling of it, whether
necessary to sacrifice, b 99, 100.

Body and Blood of Christ, their sub
stantial Presence confuted, a 344.
See Transubstantiation.

difference between natural and

Sacramental, b 309, 310.

two Bodies of Christ are not in

the Sacrament, a 344, 510.

yet Lutherans and Calvinists

must allow two Bodies, a 313, 510,
f!4.

own proper Body, what it means,

a 351.
how taken, or not taken, by the

wicked, a 488, 450-7.
• separated from the Blood, not

offered in substance by Christ, f 5.

called Sacrifices, f 6.

and Blood in Eucharist are Bread

and Wine, a 228-36, f 14.

the improbability of this, the

cause of error, a 319-20.

many not concerned to assert the

Body and Blood in the Eucharist,

a 263.
Christ has but one Personal Body,

a 316-8.
mystical, the Eucharist so called,

a 482.

spiritual, in the language of the

ancients, a 94.

the Eucharistical Bread, such a

Body, a 302.

Bohemians assert John vi. to be meant

of the Eucharist, a 524.
Bread of God, a 151, 333-4, 446-8,

497-8, 530, b 83.

from Heaven, the Eucharist so

called, a 524.

and Wine, the only necessary

Altar-Oblations, b 342-3, 375-378.

by whom furnished, a 434, b

377, b 204.

• when to be placed on the Altar,

* 41.

by whom, * 41-2, b 206.

how they are incorporeal, rational,

a 94, 133, 303-4.
in what sense the very Body and

Blood, a 251-9, 266, b 311.
not made so by the faith of the

receiver, a 341-2.
Breaking the Bread, a necessary rite,

b 208, 9.
Burning, not necessary to sacrifice,

b 100-104.

not taught by light of nature,

b 144.

Burnt-offerings rare among the heathen,
b 50.

attended with peace-offerings

among the Jews, b 51.

C.

Cain, the fault of his sacrifice accord
ing to LXX, b 87, 145.

want of faith, b 74.

Calvin's opinion of communicating once
a year, b 184.

his saying, that Christ made a

libation with the Cup, a 167.

his notion of a sacrifice, a 67-8.

and of the Eucharist, a 309.

Calvinists come too near to Transub
stantiation, a 305-14, f 4.

may either affirm or deny the

Real Presence, a 310.

must make three Bodies in Eu
charist, a 510.

Carnal eating, what meant by it, b 311.

Carthage, the number of Christians
there, b 222.

Catechumens, their Sacrament, a 443.

kept in ignorance of the Eucha
rist, a 327, 490.

censured, though not liable to

excommunication, b 227.

Change in the elements without Tran
substantiation, a 352-4.
of nature, in what sense, a 354-5.

in a particular manner asserted

by Nyssen, a 357.

of natural qualities, denied by

this writer, f 20, 21.
not miraculous, a 355.

INDEX RERUM.

415

Christ, whether lie twice offered His

Body and Blood, a 122.
offered Himself in the Eucharist,

a 134-175, b 30-36.

how He consecrated Himself,

b 30-31.

never concealed His intention of

dying, a 510.
• calls meal-offering, sacrifice, b

73,4.
did in no sense offer for His own

sins, a 184-5.

• how He was once offered, a 200-2.

how He was offered by the Spirit,

b 114.
He offered ' the delightful thing'

in the Eucharist, a 135-6, 206-7.

instructed His disciples in the

nature of the Eucharist, before He
instituted it, a 515.

• His merits not lessened by Sacri
fice of the Eucharist, a 392-401,
b 178, 179.

how He laid down His life, b 95.

without slaying Himself, b 94,

95.

without shortening His own life,

b 95, 96.

His offering Himself, the most

memorable thing that ever was,
&68.

Chrysostom's Memory of a sacrifice,
a 121.

he refuses to condemn Origen,

a 270.

Church, its consecration for ever by the
Sacrifice of Christ, a 209-10, 218.

offers Sacrifice, a 438.

• union with her, necessary for

Communion with God, b 129.

of England has not determined

the manner of Christ's Body being
in the Sacrament, a 314.

who are her most formidable

enemies, * 18, 19.

Cicero's omen, b 103.
Clagett, (Dr.,) his mistakes concerning
John vi., a 460, 1, 501-10.

concerning the sense of St.

Augustine, a 485-7.

Clerc's Le dark annotations, b 374-5.

Clergy should encourage frequent Com
munion, b 187, 188.

Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice ;
the reason of it, b 67-69.

deserves to be the principal wor
ship, b 127, 128.

and frequently repeated, b 189.

Communion with God, the most proper
notion of it, 637.

one end of sacrificing, b 63-65.

the same with covenanting, b 63,

128, 129.

Communion with God, maintained prin
cipally by the Eucharist, b 130, 131.

and by the Eucharist as a Sacri
fice, b 168-172.

and as frequently celebrated, b

186, 187.

between Christians, b 140, 172.

Table. See Altar.

Confession of sin , how made in primi
tive Church, b 268, 272.

Consecration of the Apostles performed
by Christ in the Eucharist, b 33,
a 207.

of Eucharist, in what posture,

* 42-4.

of Eucharist, how performed,

a 331-45, b 279, 280.

by the Spirit, a 266, 304.

whether it can be done without

Oblation, b 175, 179.

esteemed permanent in primitive

Church, a 342-3, \ 14, 18.

a fairly supposed prayer of Con
secration, a 114.

Consistency of the primitive doctrine
of the Eucharist, a 321-2, b 390.

of understanding John vi. of the

Eucharist, a 511-21.

Constitutions of the Apostles, what,
f 10.

second, what, f 11-13.

Consubstantiation, a 312-15.

how explained or denied by Lu
therans, f 13.

Consumption of Sacrifice, whether only
by fire, a 83-4.

distinct from Oblation, b 103.

always performed chiefly by man-

ducation, a 85, 441-2.

which is most honourable, a

442-3.

Covenant renewed with God in Eucha
rist only, b 130. See Communion.
Creed shortest, thought the best,

* 20.

no essential part of the Com
munion-service, b 213.

Crcesus's sacrifice, b 80.

Cross of Christ, an Altar, a 80.

whether meant by St. Paul, Heb.

xiii. 10, b 38.
whether the Personal Sacrifice was

offered there only, f 3-6, b 28.
Cudworth, (Dr.,) his notion of the Eu
charist, a 444.

his mistake, f 5-6.

Cup denied or fraudulently given to

the people in the Church of Rome,

a 411.
must have been offered by Christ,

a 170, f 18.
whether mixed with water, b 77,

78, 84, 85, 203-205.

416

INDEX RERUM.

D.

Daily Eucharists in primitive Church,
b 124, 126, 186.

corrupted in Church of Rome,

b 180.

David did not renounce sacrifice, b

156, 159.
Deacon, not to offer to God, a 425, 8.

how to offer to the people, a 426.

• one part of his office, to warn

offenders, b 272.
Definitions of Sacrifice, a 67-9.
Delivering to Satan, what, b 232.
Destruction of the flesh, what, b 248,

249.

Devotions for the Altar, b 282.
Disciple, a child may be one, f 11.
Discipline, the foundation of it, how

to be restored, b 258, 263.
Dissenters, on what terms peace with

them desirable, * 18.
Distribution of Eucharist. See Feast,

Consumption, &c.
Divisions concerning the Eucharist, by

whom caused, * 19-21.
Doctrine of Christ properly received in

Eucharist, a 458. See Word.
Docetce, their error, a 257- 8.
Drink-offerings, b 77, 78.
whether wholly poured out at the

Altar, b 83, 84.
Duties, their degrees of obligation,

b 118-120.
moral and positive, b 118-119.

external and internal, b 119,

120.

E.

Eating Christ's Flesh, whether it sig
nify faith, &c., only, a 505-6.

cannot be a mere metaphor, a

508-9.

Effects of Christ's Death various, and
variously applied, a 213.

Ends of Sacrifice, a 70, 78.

of Christ's offering and ours, not

the same, a 206-7, b 115.

of Sacrifice, attained in the Eu
charist, a 360-401, b 56-67.

Ephesus, the General Council there,
understands John vi. of the Eucha
rist, a 490.

Epipfianius condemns Origen, a 270.

Episcopacy, why thought burdensome,
* 20.

f<rQi6vT(av, how to be turned, b 209,
278.

Eternal Life, John vi., what meant by it,
a 522.

Etymologies not allowed for proof, * 48,
a 73.

Eucharist, the meaning of the name
according to Clemens Alexandrinus,
a 285-6, 389.

the proper Christian worship,

b 121-127.

a sacrifice of thanksgiving, a 360-

384, b 66, 67.

a rational account of it, f 4.

• whether called a Sacrifice in

Scripture, b 41.
necessity of it, as an institution,

b 121.
• as a tie to obedience, b 139.

as a tie to charity, b 140.

as the Christian worship, b 111.

as it is praying in Christ's Name,

b 121, 122.

the foundation of discipline, b

256.

not celebrated by the Apostles

before Pentecost, b 122.

whether consecrated without Ob
lation, b 175, 178.

• the rareness of it, blameable,

b 180, 181.

One, as being Christ's Body, b

199, 200.

a perfect Absolution, b 242.

yet not, when received once only,

i242.

ought to be guarded from profa
nation, b 245.

dangerous to unworthy receivers,

6250.

the neglect of it, damnable, a 500,

523.

not to be administered to the

ignorant, a 515.

all baptized Christians bound to

receive it, b 126, 127.
except they are Penitents, b 126,

127.
how it is the Bread from Heaven,

a 524.

called a Divine Substance, a 276.

a spiritual Body, a 276, 311, 312.

• converted to the nourishment of

the body, a 443.

a spiritual Sacrifice, a 302-3.

the raising power of It, a 280,

b 135-139.

benefits of It, b 280.

of old reserved, a 342-3, f 18.

had not Divine honour in the

primitive Church, a 346-51.

• as beneficial as Christ's natural

Body, a 344.

in what case consumed by fire,

a 318.

to be taken both internally and

externally. See Feast, Consumption,
Sacrifice, Communion, Covenant.

INDEX RERUM.

417

Eucharistized Bread, a 279, 285-6, 339.
Eulogy, the same with Eucharist, a

339, 377, 8.
Examination, what necessary for the

Communion, b 280, 281.
Excommunication, if final, made so by

the offender, a 216, & 237.

instituted by Christ, b 225.

grounded on the dignity of the

Eucharist, b 247.

who have power to pass it, b 226.

for what inflicted, b 227.

a check to vice and heresy, b 243,

244.
passed only on obstinate, b 228.

on none but communicants, b

228.

in what the punishment con
sisted, b 228, 229.

manner of it, b 229.

form of it, b 229, 230.

the full import of it, b 225.

ends of it, b 248-250.

but once passed on the same per
son, b 236.

few continued long under it, b

237.

how men were gradually loosed

from it, b 238, 242.

one part of the sentence presently

removed upon repentance, b 239.
a great terror to vice, b 254.

civil punishments of Christian

magistrates do not render it un
necessary, b 244.

how it was a curse, b 250, 251.

a cursing form, b 250.

the corruptions of it, b 255-257.

it took place in all Churches,

b 230, 231.

Exemplifications in law, an illustration
of Eucharist, a 241, 322.

Expiation, one end of Sacrifice, b 60.

Expiatory nature of the Eucharist ex
plained, a 393-401, ft 66.

therefore propitiatory in the most

proper sense, b 386, 387.

F.

Facere, to offer, b 353, f 17, 18.

Faith cannot make bread the Body of

Christ, a 341 -4, 450,507.
alone is not eating Christ's Flesh,

a 506.
not sufficient to apply the merits

of Christ, a 394, 400, 485.
necessary to fit us for Eucharist,

a 323-4.
Fast, whether broken by receiving

Eucharist, a 445.
Fathers did not take John vi. to be

properly meant of doctrine, a 461-91.

JOHNSON.

Fathers, proper use of them, a 134-149,
6306.

the authority of a single one in

fourth century of small weight,
* 31-2, a 250.

their integrity, a 416-17.

assert nothing so harsh as Cal-

vinists and Lutherans do, a 310.

how they denied Altars and

Sacrifices, a 413- 17.

of the first and second century, of

great authority, a 306.
Feast on a Sacrifice, the Eucharist so,

a 443-5.

yet not in Dr. Cudworth's sense,

f5.

the disagreement of our adver
saries here, a 444.

Papists for most part set aside the

feast, a 441, 6 180, 214.
Feasting and Sacrificing went together

of old, 627-41.
Feast religious, the Eucharist most

excellent, 6 53.
Fire, what used in sacrifice, 6 63.

not necessary to sacrifice, 6 51,

52, 100-104.

First-fruits were a Mosaical sacrifice,

t 21, 22.
what to be offered at Eucharist,

f 15, 16.
Flesh of Christ, what Ignatius meant

by it, a 497-8.
the same Avith Body, a 499, 512-

13,515, 520-1.

does not signify Doctrine, « 506.

natural, cannot be eaten, a 507-8.

in the Sacrament, separated from

the Blood, a 507.
Eternal Life, how the reward of

feeding on It, a 519-20.
not only to be eaten, but fed upon,

a 530, b 184.

Frequent Communion, Pastors to pro
mote it, b 180, 187.
people to join in it, 6 182.

Lutherans encourage it, 6 180.

Council of Trent pretends to wish

it, b 180.

Popish Divines discourage it,

6 182.

required by Christ, b 184.

practised by primitive Church,

6181.

- the gross vulgar neglect of it,
6 186.

the scandal of this neglect, 6 187,

188.
necessary for the pardon of sin,

6 191, 242, 243.
and for obtaining grace, 6 192.

and for ensuring Eternal Life,

b 192, 193.

418

INDEX KERUM.

Frequent Communion, necessary for
keeping ourselves strict to our duty,

objections against it, answered,

b 195, 196.

the true reason, why it is not

practised, b 197, 198.

G.

Gentiles. See Heathen.
Ghost Holy, consecrates the Bread
and Wine, a 266, 305.

• this of old believed even by

heretics, a 285-6.

may operate on inanimate things.

a 269-70.

the Divine representative of Christ

a 272.
• this contrary to Popery, a 284,

• Prayer for descent of Holy Ghost

used in Edw. Vlth's Liturgy, b 209,

• never believed to be hypostati-

cally united to the Bread and Wine,
a 349.

God; His dominion owned in Sacrifice
a 361- 77, 661,62.

how he accepts Sacrifice, b 64, 65.

Good things to come, what, a 189, 203.

Gold offered in sacrifice, b 80.

Gothic Missal, how without Oblation,
b 176, 177 margin.

Grace may signify Eucharistical ele
ments, a 389.

before and after meat properly

applied to the Eucharist, a 324, 345,

O TO.

received in Eucharist, b 189

190.

Greek Christians communicate rarely,

pray for descent of Holy Ghost,

b 209, 210.
Gregory Nyssen, whether a Transub-

stantiator, a 358-9.
Grotius's notion of Abel's sacrifice

b 74, 75.
of the imperfect Passover of

Christ, b 75.
of the Hymn after the Eucharist,

H.

Habits of Grace not inspired, a 248.
Heathen, their practice in sacrifice,

why considered, b 47, 48, 51.
offered their sacrifice by prayer,

u 1 1 1 , 113.

• their sacrifices truly such, b 80.

their faults in sacrificing, b 47.

48, 51, 61, 62, 64, 65.

Heathen, their odd choice of sacrifices
b 90, 91.

" Heavenly things" signifies the Chris
tian economy, a 198.

Hickes'sCDr.) the seasonableness of his
book, a 22, 23.

High-Priest. See Priest.

Homology, a 139, 221-26, b 40, 42.

• of our faith, a 226, b 128.

Honey sacrificed by Heathen, not by
Jews, b 79.

Hours. See Times.

Hunger and thirst, their signification,
John vi., a 531.

Hymns and Psalms, not necessary at
the Eucharist, b 213, 214.

I.

Immolation, what, I 106.

Impartial Hand's mistakes, | 18, 19,

Inconsistency of those who oppose the
Sacrifice, a 416-17.

Incense, a figure of Christian Prayer,
a 433.

n° Gospel Sacrifice, b 337, 338.

Infants, whether capable of the Eucha
rist, a 523-4.

Iniquity. See Sin.

Institution ; the history of it contributes
to the Consecration, a 330-1, f 15,

• allegorized by Origen, a 475.

Intention of the Priest, not to be de
pended on, b 116.

Intercessions necessary in the Eucha
rist, a 384-8, b 210, 211.

Invocation of the Holy Ghost in order
to Consecration, a 334-40, b 209,
210.

Josephus's notion of husbandry, b 74.

• of Noah's sacrifice, b 44, 45,

Irenaus's fragment published by Mons.

Pfaft, f 16, 17.
his fy€po-isUi'fv/j.aTos, a 279, 280,

f 14, margin.

Justin Martyr's a.vdp.vria'is, a 370.
• his praying with all might, f 1 9.

K.

Kiss of charity, b 202, 203.

whether necessary, b 205.

Kneeling, improper for Priest at Con
secration, * 42.

L.

Laud, (Abp.,) for what murdered, * 21.
Laurence, the meaning of his words to
Sixtus, a 427.

INDEX RERUM.

419

Laymen may not make the Priestly

Oblation, a 428-9.
yet not to communicate without

an offering, b 207.
they are to furnish the Bread and

Wine, a 434, b 203, 204.
in what sense they offer Sacrifice,

a 438, b 358.
several ranks of them, b 130.

under the Law, might kill the

sacrifice, a 448, b 114.

• the Lay-Christian more honoured

than the Jew, a 446-7, b 187.
their share in excommunication,

b 229.

Libation. See Drink- offering.
Life, the name of the Eucharist in

Africa, a 490.
Eternal depends on duly receiving

the Eucharist, b 136, 137.
Literal sense of Scripture to he pre
ferred cccteris paribus, b 371, 372,

385, 517.
Liturgies of old in the mother tongue,

a 440.
Clementine, of greatest authority,

* 32, a 113.
Lord's Day Service in prim. Church,

b 125, 126.
Prayer not sufficient to consecrate

the Eucharist, a 330, b 214, 215.

Table and Altar, the same, a

402-8.

Love-feast, a 498.

Lucian offered the Eucharist on his

own breast, a 402.
Luther retained at first the mixed Cup,

b 203.
Lutherans come too near to Transub-

stantiation, a 305, f 4.
they hold an ubiquity of Christ's

Body, f 13.

the frequency of their Commu
nion, b 180.

M.

Mactation, no proper priestly action,

a 448.
Manna, how a type of the Eucharist,

a 356.
Manner of Christ's Body being in the

Sacrament, proper to be determined,

a 315.
Marcus the heretic's legerdemain, a

285, b 220, 1.

Mass private, censured, a 401, b 213.
Matter of Sacrifice, what may be, b 73-

86.
Meal-offering prefigured the Eucharist,

a 432, b 82, 3.

emphatically called Sacrifice, b

106, 107,73,4, 75, 362.

Meal- offering often er offered than a

beast, b 75.

Mede, (Joseph,) his character, a 10.
declares for a material Sacrifice,

* 10-11.
Melchisedec offered Bread and Wine,

a 122-33.
Christ on the cross could not act

as a Priest of Melchisedec's order,

b 355.
how Christian Priests are of this

order, a 420-1.
Memorial, a 171.

Merits of Christ not lessened by Sacri
fice of Eucharist, a 398-401, b 177,

178.

Milk of old offered in sacrifice, b 74.
Mincha, the nature of it, a 437, b 82.

See Meal-offering.
Miraculous exchange.
More, (Dr.Henry,) his notion of Christ's

two Bodies, a 320.
Mystery; the Eucharist thought one

by ancients, a 296-7, 323.
therefore a secret to all but bap
tized Christians, a 326.
whether so in the Apostles' time,

a 128-9, f 12.

Mystical sense of Scripture, a 459.
Body of Christ, a 482.

N.

Nature; the various significations of

that word, a 354-5, b 313.
Nelson, (Robert,) Esq., mentioned with

honour, b 363, 195, 196.
his answer to an objection against

frequent Communion, b 195, 196.
Noah ; whether he feasted on sacrifice,

675.

or offered unbloody sacrifice, b 45.

whether he sacrificed by light of

nature, b 144.

Nomades, their sacrifices, b 75.
Novatian's schism, b 217, 219.
Numa and his people offered unbloody

sacrifice, b 76.

O.

Oblation of the Laymen, called Sacri
fice, a 435.

was free, a 435-6, b 204-206.

human, of St. Barnabas, a 438.

true import of the word, * 39.

whether it signifies alms only,

• 50-51, b 385, 386.

at the Altar, is Sacrifice, b 377.

alone does not constitute a Sacri
fice, f 21, 22.

of the Sacramental Body and

Blood, but one, * 33-4.

• this Oblation proved, a 117-20.

420

INDEX RERUM.

Oblation has no dependence on the new
notions of Real Presence, a 228.

the Eucharist passes under the

name ' Oblation,' a 107.

and is therefore called Bread of

God, a 334.

of Christ was performed in Eu
charist, a 134-75, b 28-36.

contributes to the Consecration,

a 331.

not finished till after Consecra
tion, a 340.

Oblation without receiving, when

sufficient, a 400.

not to be learned from Scripture

without attention, f 13.

how it is made before Consecra
tion, b 176, margin.

whether necessary to, b 208, 209.

— — how wanting in the Gothic Missal,
b 175, 176, margin. See Homology.

(Ecolampadius, a 321.

Offer; whether it signify to pray,
6375.

what is offered in Eucharist, a

305.

whether ' to offer,' signifies the

whole ministerial Office, b 372, 373.

Offering for sin, what, a 21 1-12.

yet remains for Christians, not

apostates, a 214-D.

the true meaning of that word,

* 41-6, 52.

Once ; how Christ was once offered,

a 200-2.
One Eucharist, b 199, 200.

as One Body of Christ, b 199,

200.

as sanctified by One Spirit, b 201.

as attended with the efficacy,

b 201.

to be celebrated in the same

manner, b 202-215.

as the officers are One by com
mission, b 215, 220.

as to the place in which it is

offered, b 221-224.

Only, often to be supplied in Scrip
ture, a 293-4.

Origen condemned for denying opera
tion of the Spirit on senseless things,
a 269-70.

his allegorical interpretation of

Scripture, a 467-9.

and even of the history of Insti
tution, a 475.

Outram, (Dr.,) his notion of Christ's
offering Himself, b 30.

P.

Papists, using the same texts that we
do, a mere cavil, * 30.

Papists and Protestants, their difference
concerning the Sacrament, a 309-15.

Paraphrase on John vi., a 529.

Passion; the Eucharist so called, a
143-4.

Passover, a true sacrifice, a 84-5.

consumed by eating, a 84, b 45.

a representative sacrifice, b 70,

71.

not defectively kept by Christ,

6177.

cannot now properly be kept by

Jews, b 178.
Patrick, (Bp.,) how far he asserted the

Sacrifice, * 37.
Pelling, (Dr.,) his opinion considered,

a 316-21.

Penances in prim. Church, b 240, 241.
the very least, b 241.

not enjoined for heresies and

schism, b 241.

very beneficial to souls of men,

b 251-253.

People ; how to be One with Bishops,
Priests, 6219, 220. See Laymen.

Perfecting, what, a 179-95.

Persians, their way of sacrificing, a 81,
b 49, 52, 100.

Pfafty, (Mons.,) an account of his late
book, f 7-19.

he supposes, Apostles prayed ex
tempore, f 18.

his observations on Gothic Mis
sal, b 176.

of the Oblation of the Eucharist

before Consecration, b 177.

Philo's mistake concerning the Jews'
priesthood, a 448.

his assertion, that Melchisedec

sacrificed, a 125.

Phoenix mentioned by Clement, 6 350,
351.

Phrases; the same, have the same
sense, a 518.

Pilate had no reason to wonder that
Christ died so soon, b 96.

Plato; the best sacrifice in his judg
ment, b 90.

7roie«>, to offer, a 170.

Politics not to be considered in Divinity,
f 22.

Popery unjustly imputed to the Sacri
fice of Eucharist, * 5- 14.

Porphyry's notion of Sacrifice, b 81.

his notion of spiritual worship,

b 155.

Posture in consecrating to be used by

Priest, * 42.

in receiving by all, b 202.

Potter (Bp.) favours the doctrine of the

Sacrifice, b 383.
denies water mixed with wine in

Sacrifice, b 78.

INDEX RERUM.

421

Poynet, (Bp.,) his testimony to the doc
trine of Eucharist, b 303, &c.

and that John vi. is meant of

Eucharist, b 310.

Praise signifies a material Sacrifice of

praise, * 12, a 368-71, 380-1. See

Prayer before the Trisagium, a 377,

b 206.
Pray, does never signify ' offer,' b 375,

or ' consecrate,' b 382.
Prayer implied in Sacrifice, b 150.
— — of Invocation, the moment of it,

a 334-40, b 209, 210.
this not used in Church of Rome,

* 13, 6209.

inconsistent with Popery, a 284.

their palliations on this occasion,

a 340.
Prayers of the Sacrifice, what, a 434.

for the dead, a 387, 8.

. sometimes implies a material

Sacrifice, a 373, 434.

therefore called ' a gift,' b 373, 374.

and praise, the only Sacrifice that

God demands from us, a 375.

the only medium for offering

Eucharist, a 432, 4.

private, in Church on Station-
Days, b 125.

praying in Christ's Name, what,

b 121, 122, 168,169.

used by Jews and Gentiles in

sacrifice, b 108, 115.

the only necessary mode of Ob
lation, 6 110, 117.

by form, not extempore, used in

the Apostolic age, f 18, 19.

never in Scripture called Sacri
fice, b 155.

enforced by Sacrifice, b 56, 57,

151, 153.

was not the Oblation of the an
cients, a 109.

Prelacy, a fatal word, * 40.

Priest, npfo-fivrcpos, ought so to be
rendered, b 352.

• how Priests may excommunicate,

6226.

they are proper Sacrificers, a 206,

418-25.

under their Melchisedec, a 420.

that their not being called so in

Scripture is no objection, a 430, 1.

they are to bless after Sacrifice,

b 56-58.

forty- six in Rome, in the third

century, b 217.

celebrating the Eucharist, their

greatest privilege, a 428-9.

their Absolution, what of old,

b 241.

• ought themselves to place Bread

and Wine on Altar, b 206.

Priests, their authority dependent on the
Bishop, a 431.

Priests Aaronical, consecrated by enter
ing on their office, 631.

both Jewish and Christian have

no special share but officiating,
6359.

Priesthood of Christian people, a 447,
6 83.

Preparation for Eucharist, what was of
old the only painful one, 6 258.

reasons why it should be very

strict, 6 270, 272.

Propitiatory, all sacrifices so, a 392, 3,
b 61-64.

that the Eucharist is so, a 384-7.

Psalms and Hymns, not essential to
Eucharist, 6213, 214.

Purging. See Perfecting, and Sanctify
ing.

Pythagoras ; how he sacrificed, 6 52,
71, 76.

Q.

Quakers serve themselves by our fanci
ful glosses on Scripture. See Por
phyry, a 518, 385, 6 155.

Qualities of Sacrifice, 6 86-97.

R.

rhat,

Reconciliation of the Tabernacle,

a 189.
Relapsers irreconcileable in primitive

Church, 6 236.
Repentance ; what so called in primitive

Church, 6 251-253, 264,271.

but one, 6 236, long, 269, 270.

severe, 6 239, 267.

how aggravated, 6 238.

Representation ; the Eucharist a most

perfect one, a 272.

Jews had none, strictly so, 6 35.

how the Passover was such, 6

70, 71.
Reservation of Eucharist, practised of

old, a 342-6, 6 317, 318.
even by private Christians, a 445,

6 124, 225, 226.
Resolution against sin, necessary to fit

men for Eucharist, 6 274.
Resurrection. See Life eternal.
Reverence internal, necessary to fit men

for Eucharist, 6 275.
external, necessary to be used in

receiving, 6 276, 277, 202.
Rites what necessary to Sacrifice, a 82,

432, 347, 361.
what not essential to Eucharist,

697.
Roman Gentiles first offered unbloody

sacrifices, b 76.

422

INDEX RERUM.

Roman Gentiles afterwards thought a

sheep the greatest sacrifice, b 90.
Rubric, who interpreters of it, * 44.

S.

Sacrament, and Virtue of Sacrament,

a 453, 432.
of Catechumens, a 443.

whether concealed hy Apostle,

a 128, 9, f 12.

Sacramentarians who, b 355.

Sacraments, Eucharist so called, a 338,
468.

Sacrifice, the definition and nature of
it, a 65-85.

several sorts of it, a 66, 360.

attended with feasts, b 42-48.

one that is material may be un
bloody, rational, &c., a 86-93.

any substance not forbid may be

a sacrifice, b 73-86.

the value of them, how to be

stated, b 86-91.

implies Consecration, a 271.

must be oifered to God Alone,

661, 62.

enforces prayer, b 56-58.

• never abolished, a 176, 7, b 156-

163.
what made it despised, b 54, 55.

of righteousness and of shout
ing, what, b 89, 90.

was to be of the best men had,

b 87, 88.

whether taught by nature or

by revelation, b 144, 145.

not invented by rude people,

6146.

God's acceptance of it, b 147.

God's establishing of it, before

the Law, b 148, 149.

it implies prayer, b 150.

to be preferred before bare prayer,

b 150-154.
in what sense God desires it not,

b 156.

no more abolished than prayer,

b 160.

• not accepted from wicked hands,

b 161, 164.
how obedience is preferred to it,

b 164-166.
Saul's, why rejected, b 165.

Jewish, how abolished, b 165,

166.

all but the Eucharist, how un
necessary, b 166.

a means of covenanting and com
municating, b 169-174.

of thanksgiving, material, a 360-

84, b 60, 157.

bloody, type of Christ, b 72.

Sacrifice, impure, b 94, 95.

in itself most valuable, b 93.

offered, while alive, b 28.

by prayer, b 109-111.

— — was thought to die instead of the
offender, b 60, 61.

• yet not as satisfactory or equiva
lent, b 73.

unbloody, real, and perfect, a

72, b 39, 73-83.

antiquity of it, b 74-77.

frequency of it under the Law,

b 75, 76.

the stress laid on it, b 120, 121.

the purity of it, a 94.

expiatory nature of it, b 60-70.

of Christ, Personal, the most

memorable, b 68.

though bloody yet in itself pure,

b 94, 95.

yet attended with a gross im
purity, b 95.

how it for ever perfects, a 136,

137.

the ends of it various, and vari
ously applied, a 212, 13.

it was offered by prayer, 6114,

115.

and while He was alive, b 31-33.

it was no Jewish sacrifice, 6 34.

the time and company most

proper, 6 35.

at His instituting the Eucharist,

a 160-71, 6 32.
• it was a real Sacrifice, 6 27, called

Sacrifices, f 6.
but offered representatively, 6 28-

30.

not by fire, 6 65, 66.

of the Eucharist, unbloody, a 78,

640.
asserted in some measure in the

Great Rebellion, * 14.
why Papists deny it to l:e taught

in Scripture, 6 350.

of what weight the practice of

primitive Church is here, * 25, 6.

the obscurity of it, no proof

against it, * 26, 8.

asserted in three first centuries

as clearly as in fourth, * 31.

disagreement of assertors no proof

against it, * 34.

not to be valued by outward ele
ments, a 78.

seeming newness, real antiquity

of it, f 6, 7.

materiality of it proved, a 96-1 15.

not offered for the same ends by

Christ and us, a 176.

if it were not a Sacrifice for sin,

yet would be a Sacrifice of Thanks
giving, a 176, 7.

INDEX RERUM.

423

Sacrifice, propitiatory and expiatory,
how, a 384-401, 667.

why not offered by burning, b 54.

. offered of old for deceased souls,

a 387, 8.

asserted or allowed to be a Sacri
fice by Bishop Poynet, b 307, 309.

— all ends of Sacrifice served by it,

b 67, 68.

whether necessary to be practised

as such, b 141-179.

the excellency of it, b 53-86.

no diminution to the Grand Sacri
fice, a 392, 398, 9, b 178.

but exalts the dignity of It, b 179.

Salt always an ingredient of sacrifice,
b 58, 65, 76.

Sanctifying, what meant by it, Heb.
ix. 10, a 184, 5, 191, 196, 7.

Schismatics, who the greatest, b 218,
219.

Scythians, their sacrifice, b 100, 113.

Scripture sometimes has a double
meaning, a 457, 8.

LXX Translators' sense of a Sacrifice,
a 76.

Senes and Seniores, Bishops, b 217,
218.

Serapion's case, b 237, 243.

Skew-bread prefigured the Eucharist,
a 432.

Sin, and taking it away, what it signi
fies, Heb. ix. x.,a 186, 188-99, 211,
12.

what does, or does not, defile

Baptism, b 257, 266.

after communicating, not un
pardonable, b 274, 275.

presximptuous and habitual, unfit

us for Communion, b 264, 265.
resolution against them, necessary

preparative for Eucharist, b 274.

remitted in Eucharist, b 132.

often signifies a Sacrifice for sin,

a 368, 9.

Slaying and offering, two things, 6113.
not always performed by priest,

698.
Christ did not, could not, slay

Himself, 6 34, 95, 96, 98.

scape-goat, a sacrifice, though

not slain, 6 105.

Socinians' notion of the Eucharist, a

312, 13,321.

Spartans ; their sacrifices, 6 88.
Species, what Irenaeus meant by it,

a 437.
Spencer, (Dr.,) his notion of Sacrifice,

a 68, 83.
asserts water mixed with wine in

sacrifice, 6 78.
Spirit, John vi. 63. the variation of

Divines upon it, a 289, 291.

Spirit, how Christ was offered by the,

b 114.
Spiritual Communion (chosen) extra

Ccenam, censured, a 453.
worship, the wrong notion of it,

6 154.
Spiritualizing Scripture, the danger of

it, a 411, 500. See Quakers.
Sprinkling. See Blood.
Substance, how Bishop Poynet allowed

Bread to be the substance of Christ's

Body, 6 313-320.
Synagogue. See Worship.
Synesius's proceeding against An-

dronicus, 6 229-233.

T.

Tabernacle not made with hands, the
Church, a 190.

Table, the Altar so called, a 405, 7.

Tertullian's opinion of Lay-Sacrificers,
a 429.

Theophilus of Alexandria condemns
Origen, a 269, 70.

Throne of Grace, what, a 222.

®vci> ; the proper signification of it,
a 72-8, 6 99.

Time, present not put for future, in the
Institution, a 160-163.

most proper for Christ to offer

Himself, 6 77.

Times for Eucharist, in what sense
fixed, 6 378-382.

Timothy's Oblation of the good Ho-
mology, a 223, 4.

Tradition, that Christ made the Priestly
Oblation upon the Cross, 6 28.

the great uncertainty of all Tra
dition, 691.

Torre's opinion concerning John vi.,
6 183.

Transubstantiation confuted or re
nounced, * 10, a 70, 78, 83, 261,
277, 305, 6, 310, 313, 315, 470, 507,
8, 510, 517, 6 330, 331, 347, 348,
f3.

Translators English, may lead into an
error concerning Sacrifice, 6 40.

Treaty of Poissy, a 307-9.

Trent, the doctrine of that Council con
cerning frequent and spiritual Com
munion, 6 180-184.

Trisagium, a 377, 6 206.

Types, several degrees thereof, a 241-
8.

Manna and water, how types,

a 356.

excellency of the Eucharistical

type, a 238-41.

Turner, (Dr.,) his mistakes and falsi
fications, a 371-387, f 20-23,

424

INDEX RERUM.

U. V.

Value of Sacrifice, as to its outward
qualities, b 86, 87.

Ubiquity of Christ's Body asserted by
Lutherans, f 13.

Unbloody. See Sacrifice.

Unworthy communicating what, b 263-
266.

does not justify non-communi
cants, b 273, 274.

Vow. See Prayer.

Vows, the reason of them, b 153.

W.

Water in Baptism, not a type hut sign
of the Spirit, a 248, 9.

mixed with wine in ancient Sacri
fices, b 78.

of old mixed with Wine in Eucha
rist, b 84, 85, 203.

whether this mixture be neces
sary, b 205. See Cup, and Drink-
offering.

Wave-loaves a sacrifice, b 105.
Whitby, (Dr.,) his notes commend

a 184, 387.
his mistakes, a 194, 461, 4

501-505, 200, 209, 259, 260.
Williams, Abp., how an enemy to

Sacrifice, * 2.
Wise, (Dr.,) his buffoonery and fictio

f 24, 26.

Wood-offering, b 256.
Word or doctrine most perfectly :

ceived in Eucharist, a 456, 458, 4<

477.

Words, the fascination of them, * 40.
the same, sense the same, a 51

18.
Worship of the Synagogue inferior

that of the Temple, b 156, 187.

Z.

Zeal, not for a sacrifice of mere Bre,

and Wine, a 78.
Zuinglius, a 321.

OXFORD I
FEINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.

JOHNSON, JOHN BX

5035
.L5
Works Jo

v.2.